Judicial Murder of a Prime Minister
by Tariq Aqil
December 07, 2004

Bhutto was removed from the political scene of Pakistan to satisfy the power lust and perpetuate the rule of the vily military dictator General Zia Ul Haque

The tragic end of a political icon2:00 AM, 4th April 1979, Central Jail Rawalpindi. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto first elected Prime Minister, former President and former foreign minister of Pakistan was informed by his jailers “Its time”. He was removed from the death cell and taken to the gallows or “Phansi Ghar” for execution. The word had leaked out among the inmates of the jail and the melancholy quiet of the night was now punctuated with recitations from the holy Quran. Head held high, in proud defiance, Bhutto walked the short distance to his place of execution, his tryst with destiny, and the final act in his turbulent chaotic and historical career.
Tara Masih the official executioner and hangman tightened the noose around Bhuttos’s neck and now in the eerie silence of that macabre scene those present heard Bhuttos final words “Finish it, Finish it”. At a signal from the jail superintendent Tara Masih pulled the lever. Bhutto was hanged from the neck until dead. The dead body was then flown to Sindh from the air force base at Chaklala. The PAF C-130 aircraft landed in Larkana where it had rained through out the night as if the very heavens were weeping. ZAB’s first wife Ameer Begum and his cousin Shirin were hurriedly rounded up from the neighboring village of Naudero to take part in the last rites to be secretly performed in the ancestral graveyard of the Bhutto family, in Garhi Khuda Baksh where a fresh grave had been dug next to the grave of Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto. Benazir Bhutto and Begun Nusrat Bhutto were not granted the courtesy of information in time to enable them to attend the funeral. Shahnawaz and Murtaza Bhutto were both in Europe and Sanam was at Harvard totally oblivious to the tragic and grim scene being enacted in such a sinister manner to extinguish the life of their beloved “Papa” and “Qaid-i-Awam” to millions of Pakistanis.
Nazar Mohammed a lifelong servant of the Bhutto family was allowed to assist in the burial of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who later stated. “ His face shone like a pearl. He looked like the way he was at sixteen. His skin was not of several colors nor did his eyes or tongue bulge out like the pictures I had seen of men that Zia had hanged publicly. I turned Bhutto Sahib’s face to the West towards Mecca. His neck was not broken. There were strange red and black dots on his throat, however, like an official stamp.” The vile dictator Zia feared a possible backlash or violent public reaction and to avoid that he had it done with and over before dawn. Contrary to the Pakistani official code for hangings ZAB’s judicial murder was secretly performed in the dead of night. For the first time since he had taken over the country Zia could breathe easy and announced gleefully to his henchmen or “Rufqa” as he was fond of calling them, “The bastard is dead!”

11th November 1974 shortly after midnight, Ahmed Raza Qasuri, member of the National assembly and a bitter critic of ZAB and the Peoples Party was on his way home, with his family after attending a marriage ceremony in Shadman colony in Lahore. The stillness of the night was broken by the sound of gunfire; in a split second Nawab Mohammed Ahmed Khan sitting in the front seat received fatal injuries and was pronounced dead on arrival at the United Christian Hospital. Shortly after Ahmed Raza Kasuri lodged a first information report or FIR. The assailants were unknown but Ahmed Raza managed to name Zulfuqar Ali Bhutto as the brain behind the murderous attack on his father. The logic behind the accusation was that Ahmed Raza had become a thorn in the side of ZAB and his people’s party as he was a member of the opposition, information secretary of the Tehreek-i-Istiqlal and a renowned critic of Bhutto and his policies. He added that in June 1974 Bhutto had threatened him on the floor of the National Assembly, “You keep quiet! I have had enough of you! Absolute poison! I will not tolerate your nuisance any more.”

The trial of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and five other defendants commenced on 11th October 1977 in the Lahore high court before the following five judges (i) Maulvi Mushtaq Hussein, Chief Justice, (ii) Jaki ud Din Pal, Judge, (iii) MSM Qureshi, judge, (iv) Aftab Hussein, judge, and (v) Gulbaz Khan. The public prosecutor was Ejaz Hussen Battalvi and Bhutto was defended for part of the proceedings by D. M. Awan, Ehsan Qadir Shah, and Enayatullah. By this time the military regime of the evil despot General Zia Ul Haque was in complete control of the country. All pillars of state including the judiciary and the executive had been made subservient to the whims and wishes of the military dictator. The legislature did not exist, trade unions, students’ organizations and free lawyers forums had been trampled under jackboots and the press had been gagged or forced to dance to the tune of the rulers. Zia’s mind was already made up; he was determined to kill Bhutto. This is evident from the interview he gave on 6th September 1977 in which he confirmed that he had personally ordered the arrest of ZAB and added “ Mr. Bhutto was a Maccheiavelli in 1977.

An evil genius running the country on more or less Gestapo lines, misusing funds, blackmailing people, detaining them and even perhaps ordering people to be killed.” The learned judges of the Lahore High Court pronounced their historic but unfortunate judgment on 18th March 1978. Bhutto was found guilty and sentenced to death. This unanimous decision stated that the prosecution had proved their case “to the hilt” and that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was a “compulsive liar” To add fuel to fire Zia had stated in an interview to the Urdu Digest on 15th September 1977 that Bhutto is a cheat and a murderer and he would not be able to escape the severest punishment on the basis of the evidence already available.

The prosecution’s star witness was Masood Mahmood a shady character of rather dubious antecedents and the former Director General of the infamous Federal Security Force or FSF, on whose testimony the entire edifice of the case was built and finally proved to be the bedrock of the Government’s case. The learned judges of the Lahore High Court were totally unconcerned and oblivious to the fact that Masood Mehmood made a confessional statement in order to save his own neck and thus should be classified as (i) an unsatisfactory witness, (ii) an accomplice and a participant in the crime, (iii) he admitted his guilt three years after the crime was committed, (iv) he made his confessional statement a long time after he was arrested, detained and kept in solitary confinement, (v) there were many other criminal charges against him, and (vi) he was a pardoned witness and an accomplice with a motive to implicate Bhutto.

Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court Maulvi Mushtaq Hussein was a known Bhutto hater and made no secret of his dislike and enmity with the former Prime Minister. Just before the beginning of the trial, the constitution of the court had been challenged by Bhutto on the grounds of appointment of Maulvi Mushtaq Hussein as the Chief Election Commissioner by the Zia regime. Bhutto’s appeal and rejoinder to the press alleged partisanship against justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussein and labeled it a travesty of justice in combining the office of the Chief Election Commissioner and Chief Justice of the High Court. Mr. Bhutto also pointed out the visible bias and vindictive nature of Maulvi Mushtaq by bringing to light the fact that Maulvi Mushtaq on the retirement of Justice Iqbal had been superseded during Bhutto’s rule although he was the senior most judge of the Lahore high court and since that day he had nurtured a grudge against the former Prime Minister. All the allegations were repeated in the application for transfer of the case on behalf of Bhutto before the high court and the supreme court of Pakistan. The high court dismissed the appeal summarily on 9th October 1977.

Through out the course of the trial in the Lahore High Court the Chief Justice Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain failed to disguise his contempt for Bhutto and continued to spit venom and brimstone in the form of rude, insulting and uncalled for remarks against Bhutto and all that he stood for. Many times he was ordered to keep standing and once was placed behind the dock and given a chair with the cryptic remark by the Chief Justice “We know you are used to a very comfortable life” The defense lawyer also submitted that a dock had been put up in the court for the “principal accused” as Bhutto was called to cage and humiliate him with the result that he was prevented from giving instructions to his lawyers. On one occasion Maulvi Mushtaq even mentioned the hypothetical case of judges being superseded for appointment of a Chief Justice,. This was indeed a stupid observation by the Chief Justice because he himself was the judge superseded during Bhtto’s term as prime Minister. Maulvi Mushtaq also gave an interview to the BBC correspondent Mark Tulley. He spoke about common law traditions and that he was disappointed that Amnesty International did not send observers. He stated that the Bhuuto case was being heard by 5 judges although the law required only two. This was not only unusual but also against all judicial ethics for a judge to comment publicly on a case being tried in his own court. The Chief Justice completely forgot that the person most in need of an assurance that justice would be done was the accused himself. The Chief Justice was not only rude and insulting to Bhutto but also to the Bhutto Lawyer who was a very senior member of the bar, very often criticizing and ridiculing his quality of cross examinations.

On 22nd September 1977 General Zia replaced Justice Yaqub Ali Khan by his own nominee Justice Anwar Ul Haque as Chief Justice of the supreme court of Pakistan. On 23rd of September the new Chief Justice took his oath of office along with other supreme court judges, Omitting the paragraph in the oath laid down in 1973 constitution whereby the supreme court judges swear to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution” by this contrived deliberate manner the judges ceased to function as constitutional judges and were absolved from keeping faith with the oath they had sworn earlier.

After being sentenced to death by the Lahore High Court Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 25th March 1978. ZAB appealed to the Chief Justice to withdraw from the case as he had publicly criticized Bhutto and his Government and had even referred to Zia Ul Haque as a “National Saviour” and had also acted as Head of state during Zia’s absence from the country. This appeal was rejected by Anwar Ul Haque as being “unfounded and based on a misunderstanding” The CJ announced that he was going to nominate a full bench of 9 judges and his view would be only one view of the nine judges. Hearings of the appeal continued from 20th of may 1978 to 23rd December 1978. Judgment was delivered on 6th of February 1979. It was a split decision of 4:3 that finally sealed the fate of the charismatic former Prime Minister of Pakistan. During the course of the trial in the Supreme Court fate played a trick on ZAB not once but twice. The number of Judges hearing the appeal was reduced to seven from nine. Justice Qaiser Khan retired on 30.7.78 and Justice Wahid ud Din stepped down after suffering a stroke on 20th November 1978. The handpicked Zia nominee Chief Justice Anwar Ul Haque, a member of his Arain Biradri wrote the judgement, dismissing the Bhutto appeal and upholding the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Lahore High Court. Justice Mohd. Akram,.Justice Karam Elahi Chohan and Justice Nasim Ali Shah agreed with the decision of the Chief Justice and the three other judges who allowed the appeal of Bhutto and the other accused, Mian Abbas, were Justice Dorab Patel, Justice Haleem Sidiqui, and Justice Safdar Shah. Ironically another paradox of this historical case is that all the 4 judges who upheld the death sentence belonged to the Punjab province. The Chief Justice was a part of the “Jullundari Junta that ruled Pakistan and a member of the all-powerful Arain Biradri of Zia Ul Haque.

Three judges who disagreed with the Chief Justice all belonged to the smaller provinces of Pakistan.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had strictly forbidden his supporters and family not to submit any mercy petitions to Zia Ul Haque. As a last ditch effort to save Bhutto’s life, Mr. Hafeez Peerzada, a former Minister in Bhutto’s cabinet, and two of Bhutto’s sisters submitted a mercy petition to General Zia Ul Haque on 31st March 1979. “It’s his neck or mine” General Zia had told Roedad Khan “I have not convicted him and if they hold him guilty, my God I am not letting him off!” The then Secretary General of the Ministry of Interior Roedad Khan was responsible for digesting the mercy appeals and pleas that kept pouring in from all over the world to spare Bhutto’s life. All such appeals were summarized for Zia ul Haque to read and give his decision. Due to the sheer number of appeals from world leaders and international organizations, it still took a lot of time and meanwhile the President’s office kept calling and asking Roedad Khan to speed up the process and asking him, “Why are you taking so long?” Simply for the reason that he could not be hanged unless and until all these appeals and mercy petitions had been “digested” and rejected with out a second thought.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto still rules the hearts and minds of millions of Pakistanis. Politics in Pakistan still revolves around the myth of Bhutto; people are either pro Bhutto or anti Bhutto. The specter of Bhutto will continue to cast a long shadow on the political scene of Pakistan and Bhutto will continue to influence political events from his grave in the interior of Sindh.

http://www.chowk.com/Views/History/Judicial-Murder-of-a-Prime-Minister

World: One Grave for Two Men
Monday, Feb. 19, 1979

The Supreme Court approves a death sentence
With weary patience, the seven justices of Pakistan’s Supreme Court have been primarily engaged since last May in hearing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s appeal against his death sentence. Last week, in a narrow 4-to-3 verdict, the justices confirmed the sentence imposed on the former Prime Minister by the Lahore high court for ordering the 1974 assassination of a political enemy by the feared Federal Security Force.
The judges divided mainly over the credibility and motives of Masood Mahmood, former chief of the now disbanded F.S.F., who had turned state’s evidence. But the court also split along ominous lines for a country torn by regional rivalries. The three dissenting judges who voted to free Bhutto came from his native province of Sind and two provinces bordering troubled Afghanistan and Iran. The four judges in the majority are from Punjab, where middle-class revulsion against Bhutto’s autocratic rule was strongest.
A message by Bhutto, smuggled out of prison before the Supreme Court ruling, warned that “my sons will not be my sons if they do not drink the blood of those who shed my blood.” In fact, popular reaction to the verdict was muted, and is likely to remain so as long as hundreds of Bhutto district leaders and party officials remain under arrest and barred from organizing demonstrations. Appeals for commutation of the sentence came from President Carter, British Prime Minister James Callaghan, Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev and Pope John Paul II. Another petitioner was Premier Bulent Ecevit of Turkey, the only country in modern times to have hanged its own Prime Minister by judicial process.* Ecevit offered Bhutto asylum if his life was spared.
Although couched in humanitarian terms, most foreign appeals seemed motivated by concern for Pakistan’s stability. Since the country was carved out of British India as a Muslim “land of the pure” 32 years ago, Pakistan has had three constitutions and suffered through three military coups, plus repeated doses of martial law. In July 1977 General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, the army Chief of Staff, seized power after aggrieved mullahs and members of the middle class took to the streets to protest Bhutto’s political corruption. Zia has moved cautiously to cleanse politics and restructure the nation’s criminal and financial codes along Islamic lines.
Before Bhutto goes to the gallows, his lawyers can ask the Supreme Court to review the case for possible legal errors. The family of the former Prime Minister may also appeal to Zia for executive clemency. Domestic political considerations are likely to weigh more heavily than foreign opinion as Zia makes his final decision on whether or not to apply a stiff dose of Islamic justice and carry out his threat to “hang the blighter.”

Political wits have devised a succinct bit of gallows humor in Urdu: Ek qabr, do admi—one grave, two men. No one in Pakistan needs a translation. By hanging Bhutto, Zia could also be digging his own political grave. Many of the country’s feuding politicians want Zia to bear the brunt of dispatching Bhutto, an act that would drastically hurt the President’s chances of influencing national elections due later this year. Also eager for the double funeral are several ambitious generals who despise Bhutto and would not give Zia a second chance if civilians once again fail to provide Pakistan with a stable, legitimate government.
* Ousted in a military coup in 1960, former Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was found guilty of corruption and misuse of public funds. He was sentenced to death by a court consisting of both civilian and military judges.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912367,00.html#ixzz1JVlLYxXW

ZAB’ statement in the Supreme Court

The First Day

Mr. Bhutto : My Lord, i know that according to protocol and the ethics of the court, i am not supposed to express my thanks and grtitude to this hounouable court for permitting me to appear before you this morning. Neverthless, according to the social conditions of the country, and in Rome do as the Romans do, i am very thankful to you for allowing me this opportunity.

In my application to your lordsship on the 4th of december, i submitted that i would like to present before this honourble court my point of view because not only my life as life of an individual is involved but because, according to my objectives appreciation, far more is at stake. My reputation, the honour of my family, my political carrer and above fall the future of Pakisatn itself is involved. This is my view; it may be a mistaken view but it an honest and sincere view.
In my application, i said that in the interest of justice i would appreciate that a favourable consideration be given to my application. On the 5th of december, your lordships were kind enough to pass an order stating that your lordship had decided at the inception that if needed i should make an appearance before this honourable court in the coruse of this apeal. Your lordships reiterated the observation mabe originally and observed that it was not in any way connected with the developments that took place subsequently as a result of the necessity of Mr. justice Waheeduddin’s departure fron the bench. Your lordships also i think indicated in that order that you would hear me in the interets of justice and that i could speak on any subject. You expressed that hope that i would choose not to cover those points that have already been covered.

Now, i would like to give this assurance to your lordships straight away that i would not like to cover those points that have already been covered but if at all i go on the beateb track, it would be because i am not familiar with everything that has been said in this court. I have been in a death cell, 7 by 10 feet. I cannot really adjust myself to the momentum and equilibrium of this room and people. It is nice to see people. Therefore, i am being a little slow in this presentation.
My second assurance to you that i have no intention of scandalising the institution as mentioned in one of the newspapers. I do not know whether that newspaper correctly reported these remarks, but i was a little amused by them. why i should scandalise institution? in the first place, previous few institutios are left to scandaliase. Secondly, i have been deeply connected and associated with the institutions of this country and i have tried to build them. I never tried to destroy them.

I have actually promoted the insitutions. Your lordships will very well remember that when i was president of Pakistan and your lordships were members of hounourble Hamood-ur-Rehman commission, chief justice Hamood-ur-Rehman and the hounourable Rahman commission wanted to examine me in the president’s house. I immediately sent a message through my special Assistant saying that i could not conceive of the chief justice of the high court of our country coming to me;that it was my duty to go to the commission and that i would not think it right for the commission to come to me meremy because i am the first elected president of Pakistan.
It has been said, for instance, that i am a Muslim in name. Now this is something which no representative, however eminent would be able to elaborate or elucidate. God forbid, if were to say to Mr. justice Safdar Shah that he is not a Pakhtoon, i think he would feel that he has a right to comment on whether he is a Pakhtoon or not. And then, My lord being a Pakhtoon or a Sindhi, or a Punjabi or a Baluchi is not so important, but being a muslim is important for this relates to one’s faith, one’s religion, one’s “deen”.

A subsidiary point arising out of these comments on my person is the question of my temprament, my character, my capacity to bear insult. In this connection, My lord, the state council, after winding up his arguments in the Lahore high court, where i had been repeatedly and unnecessarily subjected to insult, made what he thought was a very profound observation.
Next, i would like to speak on the question of social conditions because a great deal has been said about the social conditions prevaling at the time i was president and prime minister of Pakisatn. For every unproved probability in the case, the answer is either the telepohne or the prevaling social conditions. The telephone has become the greatest procecuter against me, both in this case and in the white paper. When no evidence is available, then the telephone is brought into the play. for the basis of convicting the leader of the country for murder and for giving him capital punishment, the telephone is used as a powerful instrument of oppression against him and as the surest means of collecting evedence.

Then there is the conspiracy, My Lord. It is a bewildering thing that an effort has been made to prove conspiracy from the tail to top. In that case, My Lord, to give an analogy, it can be well proved that president Carter is responsible for what happened in Guyana recently. You see, it can be said that congressman Ryan approached the state department saying that he must go to Guyana he had heared that strange thing were happening there and still permitted him to go. He went, a massacre took place. and he was killed, and tracing the things backward the blame can be laid at the door of the US president.

The question is not that of placing the cart before the horse. You can place the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart. The question is that of making the cart move. It will move only if the horse is placed before the cart and not the cart before the horse.
Before going on to the next stp, you must establish an agreement. Wher there is no agreement why waste time on duress. Duress becomes relevant only if the agreement is first established. In effect, there is no agreement, no conspiracy or pre-existing conspiracy dating from thetime of Haq Nawaz tiwana. There is no consistency to the date of teh conspiracy. Is it supposed to be April or june or at the time of the speech in August after the Islamabad incident ? As a matter of fact, i am not even directly implicated in teh FIR i have been mantioned in it. This does not make me the accused, this does not pinpoint me as the murderer of teh Kasuri’s father. As Mr. Justice Waheeduddin aptly pointed out, this may be the reason for teh motive but it cannot be a motive.

Sorry, My Lord, i am not a rootless phenomenon. I have done nom harm. President Sadat is still trying to get the desert fron teh Israealis. Begin called it the land of israelis. Hindus called this land Bharat Mata, but i brought back ninety thousand prisnors of war. yet, i am treated like a criminal. i am not a criminal, i am not a criminal but i am treated worse then the other co-accused. I hear the sound of music. I hear their Laughter in the death cell from which i cannot get out. My Lord for ninety days i have not seenn the sunshine or the light. On the 15th of octuber when two prisnors ran away, i was locked up. What did i have to dowith their escape.? where was the connection? I have not run away from my country. I would not run away from my country.
My Lord, Mustafa Khar told me in Muree to leave the country. he said those people are after your blood. I said, no, you go if you want to, i will not leave my country, i will not leave my roots. On the 13th of september, after a press conference in Sadiq hussain quereshi’s house, a foreign journalist, whose name i cannot mention, took me aside and said,” Mr. Bhutto i cannot tell you what is in teh store for you. you better leave this country. I am an admirer of you.” i thanked him and told him that i did not wish to hear more from him. Then he said,”Do not go to Larkana, please go elsewhere. You do not know what is hapening .” I said i would go to Larkana, the land fron which i sprang, the land to which i belong, and teh land to which i shall return. I would not go out.

My Lord. not that i would like to have pity, i do not want pity from anyone and i said earlier, i do not want mercy. I want justice. i am not pleading for my life. There have been so many attacks on my life. My Lord, i was attacked at sanghar, i escaped miraculously in sadiqabad. Then in the frontier tribal territories bomb exploded just before i was to speak. i did not wait for a minute and went up to speak. There were atleast four or five attempts in Baluchistan, once by Langha, who threw a hand granade at me and said,”Take this, you today of the Punjabis”.The Khan of Kalat, who was one of my closest friends,told me not to go out for i would be killed. I said i have to do my public duty and i went and addressed a public meeting. So, it is not life as life that i plead for. I want justice.

The Second Day

A Muslim In Name
Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto : Your Lordships will kindly recall that yesterday i said that i would like to begin on the question of “Muslim In name” and thes paragraph partaining to the subject which are in the judgement of trial court and which are covered by paragraph 609 to 615, My Lord.
It is unusual in an islamic state and polity for a ‘ Kalima go’ musalman to establish the fact that he is a Muslim. This is, i think, the first in the history of Islamic civilization that a muslim president, a muslimleader, a muslim prime minister elected by a muslim nation, has one day to find himself where he has to say that he is a Muslim.

It is not only an embarssing matter, it is a painful matter, Your Lordships, for that day to arise.And how does it arise? It does not arise in the term of people’s revolt or movement against that individual for not being a muslim. It comes from an ivory tower. It comes as an opinion of an individual -no matter how highly he may be placed. but he has no locus standi on this matter. he may have a locus standi on the case itself., on the matters within his jurisdiction. This is neither a matter within his jurisdiction nor is it subject matter of teh determination of the charge for that individual or for that institution or for that bench to go of its way to make comments which they are not competent to make.
I will give your Lordships an example of Haroon-ur-rashid, in the court of Haroon-ur-rashid, one of the most eminent muslim scholer got up in the court and told Haroon-ur-rashid that suppose i tell you that i not longer believe in God from today and i do not believe in Islam any more. Haroon-ur-rashid said, i will not believe you. That is not for me to believe what you are telling me is so or it is not so. As far as i am concerned, i am to believe that you are a muslim because you have been a muslim. Now that you tell me this, i accept it as an indication of the tolerance of my society. These are the words in the court of Haroon-ur-rashid.

Since there is no intermediary between God and man, there are wrongs, social evils in society, those between man and man, which are punishable here on this earth like theft, goondaism, adultry, etc. But there are also wrongs against God in islam and those are between man and God to be setteled by God on the day of judgement. This extent is the extent of direct communication betwen man and God. What islam preaches is not teh God of jews or the God of the christians or God of the muslims, but the God that islam preaches, the God that islam defines is Rabbul Alameen. He is the God of the worlds, he is the God of the all mankind, not only of the Muslims. God the soverign of soverign, the absoulute soverign. But God, the absoulute soverign imposed on himself a voluntary restriction, a self-imposed restriction. He curos his own soverignty and says that mercy and kindness are obligatiry on him: rahm and karim.
An honourable judge :Islamic summit was held in your time….
Mr. Bhutto :Islamic, in terms of the fact that this was the first time in 1970 that the people of Pakistan chose their leader, chose their party and gave them a majority, and that majority of the people of Pakistan are muslims. And during the elections campaign, much worse things were said. Fatwas were given, because we were progresive. We believed in modern and contemporary stansards and problems of society. fatwas were given that this man is a ‘Kafir’. This party is; Kufar’.

And these were given not only by ulema of Pakistan, but they also imported ome from abroad to give these kind of fatwas, and these fatwas were put in the election compaign. They were propagated in the election compaign. Apart from that, i contested elections in Lahore against Allama Iqbal’s son, javaisd Iqbal, and i was in Lahore only for a day. I defeated him by 40,000 votes. Now the people of Lahore have not gone purblind that they should choose me after all this compaign by the reactionariest and the obscurantists, and give me an overwhelming majority.
In Multan, i gained victory by 70,000 votes against maulvi Hamid Ali. The people themselves, who are muslims, majority of the people are muslims, they elected me as their leader as a muslim. I took office as president in that capacity, according to Islamic jurisprudence, Islamic social polity and political policy. After that, what interpretation can be given for such remarks to be made? I was giving only that preamble.

Usurpation is not possible in Islam. According to islam, it has to be democratic polity, it has to be a government of the people, elected by the people and through the people. There cannot be usurpation of government in Islam.Because usurpation was the main quarrel in Islamic history. why is it that in Islam illegitimacy cannot be legitimised? An illegitimate child can be burden on his parents, but he cannot inherit. He cannot be legitimised, an illegitimate government cannot become a legitimate government.
The “principal Accusd” :
Mr. Bhutto :I am not the principal accused in law. it is a misleading terminology. Consider the effect it will have on the minds of the people to continuously hear me being called”the principal accused” for six months? It has almost become a term of art in the terms of the judgment. This is also then bias. Also “arch culprit”. I take exception to that terms of the judgment and in terms of the findings.
The federal seciruty force, if i may say, your Lordships, was not created for perpetration of the personal vendetta. The federal security force was created because in almost allfederations, subject to correction, there is a force like the federal security force, which ties the provinces together in terms of law and order, in time of disturbence. For that purpose of FSF was created, not by me, but by the prliment of Pakistan. The bill was fully debated.
My Lord, this nation of 70 million people, the country, is a poor country. Even in advanced countries crimes takes place. There is not perfect law and order situation anywhere. There is not an ideal situation in which society functions. Every crime or wrong is not thrown on the doorsteps of the prime minister or president of the country. Each and every heinous crime or wrong that take place in a country does not mean that president or prime minister of that country is running that country whimsically. See the break down of law and order in countries like italy. These are factors of historical importance and have historical causes. if you bring a tank on the streets, terrorism will be off-spring.
Here in the past 18 months of Martial law , with martial regulations, martial law being supreme and all that see the amount of crime that is taking place in this country, the amount of dacoities, the amount of kidnapping. There have been a political assasinations. Makhdoomzada HAsan Mahmud’s brother gets shot in broad day light in Bahawalpur. Murad Jamali, an important tribal leader shot dead in Quetta, and some other Jamat-e-Islami man shot dead in sanghar, these things are happening today under martial law. Would you throw every thing on the doorsteps of exective, espacially all powers, allmighty exective, anserable to no body, neither anserable to man, nor to a parliment nor to anyone else. Each and every crime cannot go to teh ‘khata of exective’.

In the context of bias, if i was not a god muslim, leave alone my elections, leave alone every thing else, Maulana Maudoodi would not have come and live in my village as our guest for three months to get treatment by a hakim of ours. I would not go to his vilage if i did not believe him to be a Muslim.
Houorable chief Justice We did not know this fact.
An Houorable judge When was this.?
Mr. Bhutto : 51 or 52. He had kidney trouble and we had a very good hakim.He come to our vilage and got treated and he was staying with us.
Twenty four hours holy quran recited in my village, You do not know how these remarks hurt me. I would prefer hanging to these remarks. I would prefer the gallows to having these charge made. A person who have been involved in Pakisatn movement from the age of 15, whom pandit Nehru told in 1946:” Why you want Pakistan ? you can be the prime minister of mutahda hindustan. you are such an intelligent man.” I said i want an Islamic state. I want a muslim state. We are fighting for a muslim state. I do not want mutahda hindustan. it hurt’s ones feeling. A person who from the begining, from the time he brgan to think, has been associated with the Pakistan movement, with Quid-e-Azam’s concept of Paksiatn, which has been perverted by his enemies, in power at the moment. to make such acusation.

After further interchanges, Mr. Bhutto resume, i consider myself a humble muslim, when i was the president, Islamic summit conferrence was held in Pakisatn and king Faisal who was the king of Saudia Arabia and custodian of the holiest shrines of teh holiest cities of Islam, proposed that i should be the chairman of the ISlamic conference, a propositon from kIng Faisal himself which was unaimously accepted and agreed to by all participants. I was not only chose as the chairman of the Islamic conference but still continue to be the chairman of the Islamic conference. If Islamic conference were to be held tomorrow, i would be presiding it. How? of course, the arrangements will have to be made by your Lordships.
Honourable Chief Justce ; Unless they elect a new chairman, the previous one must….
Mr. Zulfikar Ali bhutto : A new chairman is to be elected. First the existing chairman takes the chair, he presides and then somebody propose. I had the distinction of being proposed by king Faisal.

Mr. Bhutto : I would say that if King Faisal, who was a very well informed person and knew me from 1958, if he had any doubts, if he had even a scintilla of the thinking that is reflected in 609 to 615, he would have very politely said why should the cinference be held in Paksitan.? He could have chosen any other place. He insisted that it should be in Paksiatn.
Not only that, he paid me a compliment for my services to Islam.
Then the 90 years old Ahmadi problem was amicably settled in my time then i was the prime minister. It was unanimously settled. And the constitution itself, the 1973 constitution, which was unanimous constitution of consensus of all democratic forces. You see the provision of Islam in that constitution. Islamic ideology council, various other aspects of it are all there. And a part from that the seerat conference and the other questions. For the first time in Pakisatn’s history Haj was made free for every one. Quota restriction was removed for the people of Pakstan to perfrom Haj. Friday, which was not the holiday, which was a working day, right from the time of british upto 1977,was declared to be a holiday by my government.
Red cross was changed by me into red cresent, ans all previous governments had said that it was not possible to change it to red cresent. It remained red cross right from 1947 to 1974. In 1958, when i was a minister this issue was raised but it was argued that it was not possible to change the name. When we came to office we said it is possible. We changed it into red cresent. Prohibition was abolished in my time, posterity will tell whether that was a good thing or not. However, it was introduced. Taking into account the illicit coming from India and how much of our foreign exchange is going to India from his source…

The Third Day

On Masood Mehmood’s testimony :
Mr. Bhutto : Procecution witness 2, MAsood Mahmood claims i told him to be on the right side of Vaqar. What was the point of my telling him to be on te right side of Vaqar? they are all civil servants. They belong to their tribe. No question arises of “being on the right side of Mr. Vaqar.”
I have made it clear that it is entirely a formal meeting with him upon his oppintment. what he says here shows that he is telling a lies. To corroborate Ahmad Raza’s prophetic vision and versions of the FSF, Masood Mehmood has said that in some meeting i told him to swell the crowds and also to break up opposition meetings. But he has not said so in his original statement. On the contrary, in that he was given the charter and the functions of FSF. His later ststement was an improvement to marry with what Ahmad Raza kasuri had said. The marriage was so complete that he almost reproduced the works which Ahmad Raza Kasuri had used. Masood Mehmood makes this improvement in teh court on the so-called three oral directions of mine which he says given to him. When further questioned in the high court about public meeting in Rawalpindi, he denies knowledge on the size of the crowed. He says i do not remember. However, everyone knows and it can be checked up tehre were at least two lakh people in the meeting. Masood Mehmood sayd there were 1,000 people of FSF. Now, how can 1,000 people’s swell a crowd of two laks? Here also he has shown that he is not a reliable witness.

Masood Mahmood says that the prime minister would call me frequently, and he would also speak to me on the telephone. You cannot objectively evaluate what is “frequent”. It is basically a subjective opinion, unless, ofcourse, it is happening everyday. But he says frequent, let us take his word for it that we met frequent. If we met so frequently then i would be meeting him every day. There would be no need for me to tell Saeed Ahmad to give him a message.

My Lord, the june 3rd speech of kasuri: Masood Mahmood dilates on the 3rd june speech. He says in the high court, that i said that i was fed up with the obnoxious behaviour of Mr. Kasuri and Mian Abbas knew all about his activities. He says;”The Prime minister further told me that he had given directions already”. Now my lord this is one of the vital things, he has not said in his earlier statement. He neither said this on the 24th of august. or nor he has mentioned this on the 14th of september, And it is a very vital statement. It is not a statement easily forgotten while making the original statement. In court he improves by saying that i called him immediately, two days after the june 3rd speech and told him that his predecessor had already been given instructions and that i want to see Kasuri’s bandaged up or dead body, Masood Mahmood did not say any of this in his earlier statement.
Let us generalise the posotion. I will generalise it to do this extentthat every material statement that Masood Mahmood has made in the high court, almost everyone, is an improvement or a new ststement. Without going into any improvement or omissions raises the question whether the two can stand together? as this hounouable court has asked. The two cannot stand together because Masood Mahmood has taken refuge behind the words” i was not asked this question”. On every material aspect of the points,whether it is his discussion with Welch, whether itis his discussions with me. whether it is what he has told mian Abbas, he says “this question was not asked of me”.
Masood Mahmood has been in custody, a questionaries has been given to him. a part from the questonaries, he has been told to say whatever he wants to in his forty days in Martial custody. He gets arrested on the 5th of july, the same time as we get arrested, after forty days in august, i think 13th or 14th august, he makes the statements. Not only that, he ask for a services of a stenographer. He asks for a stenographer. He asks for Abdul Haq, Abdul haq whom he takes with him to London, his favourite officer. and he gets the Abdul haq the man ho plays the role between him and the authorities. He also says for the peace of mind because he wants to relieve from all those responsibilities, tentions and strains under which he was suffering. He has all the time in the worls. He has stenographer. He has his advisor Abdul Haq, and yet he leaves out all the material aspects of the points both in the August and september statement.?

Let us go to the incident itself the incident,Masood Mahmood is living in the rest house in Multan, a canal rest house. ANd i am staying with Sadiq Hussain Qureshi, at the white house in multan. Masood Mahmood says that i gave him a call at 6:30. This is also an improvement, it si so vital that he had forgotten every thing else in his earlier statement, he should not have forgotten this. It is out of question for him to have forgotten, as he later says , that i called him at 6:30 in the morning and what i told him , in ‘colourful’ language. I was not in the headquarter and did not have a direct telephone in the first place, not did i know where this man was living. Secondly, at 6:30? the ADC and others came at 6:30 and not that i am rising at 6:30. There were times when i worked right through the night 6:30,7:00,8:00 or 9:00 and then went to sleep. I would not be so uncivilised as to get up at 6:30. It was out of question.
As a matter of fact, this is corroborated by Rao Rasheed in his affidavit filed in the supreme court where he says,” I phoned the primeminister at 8:30 and the ADC told me to ring up after an hour, 9:30. Rao Rasheed was also on Multan, because he was the IG Police. I was in Multan, and therefore he had to be in Multan. The factual position is that Rao Rasheed was the first one who informed me about the incident of Lahore. Masood Mahmood says i called him at 9:30 and in the presence of Sadiq Qureshi, told him non-chalantly, i believe so and so.

How can i call him at 9:30 and tell him this? And how can i telephone him when i have given you reason on the inability to be able to telephone, and that also on open line. Suppose the open telephone is available to me. My lord, I tell him all this on an open line? When i told my ministers to use the secret phone,it is in the white paper it mention that he cautioned Rafi Raza not to talk on the open telephone, because these are not safe.Now, if i tell my minister to talk of secret phones,I, would be discussing a crime, a murder on the open telephone even if i had one in the room , which i did not when the secret phones are available to me, the best secret phones, the safest secret phones? I could have waited for some time to be able to get him on the secret phone and talked to him on the secret phone. But if I was going to call him, why should i even talk to him on any telephone about the crime in question? I would have told my ADC, ” call Masood Mahmood”. i would not do both. But the main point is that i would not use an open telephone. Using an open telephone would be an absurd, stupid thing to do. Therefore, I say he is telling a complete lie.
My lord if i am so keen , that heaven and earth may fall, the sky will fall, but Ahmad Raza Kasuri must be out. I have no other source but the federal security force and Masood Mahmood says he is not going to be a party then he would not be in FSF till the 5th of july, 1977.If the FSF is the only source avaible to me and if, come what may Ahmad Raza is to be eliminated, and if have brought Masood Mahmood, or brought ‘X’, into this post for this specific purpose, then how is it conceivable that the same man remains in the post until the coup of july 5th right from the time he makes this defiant declaration, this churchill with a churchilian ring?, Not only does he stay on but claims that i becomehis enemy after 11th november 1974. If i became his enemy, that rules him out as an approver. If he is my enemy, then he does not qualify to become an aprover. So there also he disqulifies himself from being an aprover.

This man says that i tried to poisen his food, i tried to threaten his children, i tried to do all sorts of things to harm him. but the contradiction arises because he does not say in his earlier statement, firstly. Secondly, if the man’s wife and children are threatened, he gives another reason, also, for it.He says that in the elections of january 1977, there were certain oppositon leaders who had said in their statements that they will hang him upside down. He said yes they said it. He admits that there are other opposition leadres who used to say that we are going to deal with this man. So who is threatening his wife and children? Am I threatening his wife, his children? while he remains in FSF as direcor-general ? Is the opposition doing it or both of us are doing it? if the government and the opposition are both bent upon doing these things(which he claims)then there should be no difficulty. But nothing of the kind happened.

In the court, in order to attack his veracity,a question was asked about whether he knew a man called Munawar Ali Khan. He sais “yes, Munawar Ali Khan was with me as a student.Then he was with me in the air force”. And then he is asked :You this Munawar Ali Khan”? He says, “yes i know him because of that.””Do uyou know what his job is” He says i donot know his job”.”Have you met Munawar Ali Khan?.” “No i have not met Mr. MUnawar Ali Khan”. without trying to be scandalous(after all we have got families)the next question was asked to attack his veracity: You do not know Munawar Ali Khan job, You do not meet Munawar Ali Khan, you have not met him since the airforce days, and you have not contact with him, how is it that you married his wife?” He has to be either a Rasputin or a bengali to be able to do that. He does not meet the man, he does not know the person and yet he pulls the eggs out of the nest, and the crow is sitting on top of it.but the does not allow this question to be asked. It says teh question scandalises the lady,we donot want to scandalise the lady, certainly not. but it is murder case. I am being charged with capital punishment. I am being charged with the crime of murder and of being hanged, and we cannot attack the veracity of the main man, the person who accused me of murder and is the principlal witness, the main approver? We cannot attack his veracity, scandalise his wofe or say she is not of good character. We may be bringing the lady in but we are attacking your truthfulness, your capabilities to excel yourself in telling lies.
Masood Mahmood’s wife is a cousin of Mrs, N.A Faruqui, Khan Bahadur Qayyum’s daughter.Masood Mahmood sayd he does not know N.A faruqi, an Ahmadi of Lahori sec. Begum N.A Faruqi, whom i also know from my bombay days. They are a nice people. He does not know that N.A Faruqi was the chief secretary of West Pakistan cabnet secretary, holding very high offices and not just an Ahmadi of Lahori Sect, but a very important one. Begum Faruqi and Masood Mahmood’s wife are sisters or cousin and he says” i do not know”. What u do know then? You only know that i told you to kill my son Mr. Ghulam Murtaza! That is all you know! You do not know the seth Abid!you do not know anything about the conspiracy!you do not know anything about the plot!you are not involved!you do not know ghulam hussian!you do not know anyone.you do not know any thing!you are so innocent!and you become the man approver!Approver must have also the knowledge. He must have participated. He must be a party.He must be a part and parcel of the drama.

In short i am putting two and two together. Masood Mahmood has not been an approver. you cannot categorise him as an approver because he has himself said that from 11th nov. 1974, i was his bitter enemy, trying to kill his family, wife and children. Secondly, he cannot be an approver because he says that he has no knowledge at all of the plot or of the people. I am trying to prove that he is a liar on the face of it. Therefore, i mentioned Manawar Ali Khan, N.A Faruqi, seth Abid, Mir ghulam Murtaza Khan. It is in this context of the chain that i have said that he writes a hundred page letter.of course during Martial Law it can happen, because Martial Law is Martial Law, your judgement on Martial Law, i say positive judgement, but the other day, my lord, you said that we have validated Martial Law.you have not validated a blank cheque, you have not given.

Honourable Judge: NO, No, No
Mr. Bhutto : Your validation is in very logical terms, in terms of how you have defined and limited the scope of necessity and put the power of judicial review there.I think, if you judgement is followed correctly, it may be very crucial in saving this country. In this judgement you have given a flower to them, a bouquet, and if they want to trample on that bouquet and flower that will be great national tagedy.But if they treat it as a flower, should treated, it might render a service to finally saving this country with this bouquet which you have given them? Are they going to throw it, trample on it as they unfortunately appear to be doing.

The Fourth Day

So, My Lord, coming to the trial. When i was taken to Lahore on the 24th, again with an incomplete chalan, a fact which has already been mentioned before your lordship as also the application and motions made relating to the competence of the court,the question of the next hearing came up. I believe, according to the criminal procedure codes, seven days is the minimum time provided ,so seven days were given. At that time my senior counsels were before your lordship in the supreme court in an important writ petetion and an advocate, who was not engaged by me, but happened to be a member of my party. , got up and said, “Even after mr. Bhutto has made a request”. one of my counsels must have made it in an application.”for three weeks”, adjourment, it should be granted.
There was unnecessary sensitivity over the words, “even after Mr. Bhutto”, and the acting chief justice exclaimed, “So what? what do you mean by “even after Mr. Bhutto?”. The very use of the words “even after Mr. Bhutto” caused irritation and annoyance. I wanted to out short the unpleasentness. To stop it, i told Aftab Gul to sit down, saing that as far as the timing is cincerned, the court had said that if i needed more time, they would grant me more time and that i had confidence in the court in relation to the time and that i had confidence in the court in relation to the starting of the case. My Lord, i would also like to clarify something which has been said in the high court orders. It had been stated in one of these orders that at one stage when i was speaking i said that i had been subjected to insult right from the begining of the trial and that these insult would be setteled and that in saying so i thumbed the table.Now, My Lord, i am not the kind of person who will deny something which is factual or which is correct. In my opinion, my Lord it was not a question of having been ultrasensitive in politics. The question was simply that of culmination of insult, and this is subjective for every one has his own history or having been subjected to insult. If some poor underpriviledge person has been insulted from the time of his birth, obviously his level of accepting insults will be different.

it is unfortunate that in our society, in every society there are people who have that kind of an existence where it is a way of life to be insulted. but here it must be taken into account that i had been not in situation where uncalled for and avoidable insult had been unnecessarily and ingratuitously heaped upon me. It was in that context that i said, to the court, as i have said to your lordshipalso, that i was not there to prtotest against the sentence to be given. I said, you are to despense justice, you are here to pass a judgement. You can pass any judgement you like, but why do you want to insult me> I said, is it also a part of the penal code that when you want to convict a man for murder, then you must persistently insult him all along the trial?

As i mentioned yesterday, i am not a rootless phenomenon. People have been traumatically affected by what has happened to me. There has ben an agony in the people. I know that i am their leader. They are not going to just say, weel, nothing happened, a cup of tea was taken and all is well in world. It was in rthat sense that speaking in the high court, i give a graphic evaluation of the posotion;it was not a threat in any sense. All i said was that people are watching when insuls are being heaped on me unnecessarily.
When my wife’s blood was spilled in Gaddafi Stadium, people from my district Dadu and other places took her blood from the hospital and put in on the “Chadar” of “Qalander”and vowed that they would not allow this kind of thing to continue.This was there reaction.

When the couirt re-opened on the 9th of january and i was coming out of the room in which i was made to sit before going to the court, i was informed that i was wanted inside the chambers. Understandably taken aback, i went in and saw all the five judges sitting there, they had made a court out of the chamber The chief justice told the SP, Zafarullah, who was accompanying me; to sit down. There was another chair, so i also sat down. He immediately shouted at me to get up and said, “You are an accoused. You are not supposed to sit.” So i was an accused and was not supposed to sit down. I stood up. then i was asked if the application was mine and if i had signed it. I replied in the affirmative and was told to argue it.
My Lord the question here is that i had never been called to the chambers before, i had never seen the court sitting in the chambers, nor did i know the laws on the subject. The procecution counsel were not there the other co-accused were not there, the confessing accused and their counsel was not there. I was called alone into the chamber and asked to argue my application. I explained i could not do taht. I could not argue it.It could supplement it and i could elaborate certain points. Then my lawyers were called and given a hearing of hardly five or ten minutes. Mr. Awan mentioned two or three cases, including wali Khan’s case and others. When i wanted to supplement certain points, i was told,” You are a strange person;some time you say you want yourt Lawyers, some time you say you want to talk yourself. Make up your mind ”
I asked his Lorship where the contradiction lay. I had earlier said that my Lawyers should be permitted to argue the legal points and i would like to made some supplementory observations. At this time chief justice retorted,”You know this is not Mochi gate;you are not to make a political speech”. I knew it was not a Mochi gate. but it was not, it was the chamber of the high court.

We had made such applications from the very begining and they had all been heard in open court. Why was this application also not heard in open court? My Lord, it was a very important application asking for the transfer of the case.Why was it not heard in open court? And if it had at al to be heard in the chamnber, Why did it have to be a secret chamber trial?
My Lord, having concluded the aspect of the trial relating to bias, and i would like to be enlightened here if there is any field in which bias has not been covered. I would like to dilate on the extention of this bias for, as i said earlier, i am covering bias in its most comprehensive sense. Here, I would like to mention the chief Justice’s personal insistence that i should be taken immediately to the death cell.

Now Muy lord certain orders relating to ban on political activity, some exercise which had been taking place in the high court, three or four days before the judgement, army presense and other things like that were indicative of what was to come.In jail itself there were clear indications that all was not well in the state of denmark, floodlights were being put up, towers were being erected, sirens were being put and on two or three occasions inspections were made. So, when the jail superintendant came to me, ha sat with me for quite some time and tried to cover up all the extraordinary activity that was taking place. When i kept quite , he tried to console me and said,”Have Faith in God”. Naturally, “i’ll have faith in God, in whom else can one have faith”. But the point is he was trying to console me and then he said to me,”But if the worst come to the worst, i want to assure you that orders have already been passed that you will remain where you are. My Lord, I smiled at his effort to prepare me for the worst, for he has not been in court to hear the observations, indications given earlier which told me so clearly, we are just waiting for that final day when with lust in out eyes we will see you hang till you die. So i just smiled and said nothing.On the 18th, at 5:30 p.m. or so the deputy supredent of the jail came to me with a very small gulity face. I could see from his face that something was up. I offered him tea for i just asked for a cup for myself, but he declined and told me that it was an unpleasent duty and he was ashamed to do it, but he had been ordered to take me immediately to the death cell and that they had already got into a lot of trouble for not having taken me there when i returned from the court 11:15 or 11:30 a.m. and now the Additional IG prisons had been sent to ensure that i am taken to the death cell. So, i was dragged to the death cell.
My lord the reason i point all this to you is not that it maters to me in that sense, but because here in the supreme court, factually incorrect statements have been made. It hasbeen said that i was given three rooms with a courtyard and was not segregated, that the term “Death Cell” is a misnomer. Well, My Lords, if it is a misnomer, then surely there was no need to shift me from where i was to this other place called the death cell, where i was kept locked for 23 hours a day.

In May, i was shifted to rawalpindi. Believe me, My lord, without exaggeration, it was as if Shivaji was being into Aurangzeb’s camp, as if i was a foreign captive. The courtyard was full of soldiers. They were hovering all over the place, even in the corridor. The corridor was full of refuse, one could hardly stand there.Then there were six cells -the death cell , a bathroom and four other cells.These four cells are fly proof, The death cell was completely exposed, not even a fly proof, it was summer, it was hot, my whole face was full of flies and mosquitoes. The rooms of the guards had fly proofs. I’m glad about that. I could at least have been given one too. I have still not got it. Then, My Lord, The bathroom was completely open and i was expected to go there with people marching up and down the time.
Until, your Lordship came tomy rescue, i just refused to eat. Not that it was a hunger strike as such, it aws just refused to eat. it was just that in those circumstances, i simply could not eat. Then your Lordship intervened and some facilities were accorded, in the sense that a ‘chick’ was put up for the bathroom a switch was put inside my room to regulate the light which used to be on, all the time, before that, a telephone has been placed outside my cell and which use dto ring incessantly, was removed , the number of people in the corridor was reduced. But re-encroachments again started after few days. I would hardly come out in the corridor that i would be told to go in as my time was up. So, i decided not to come out at all. After all my self respect was m,ore important. I could not submit myself to every indiginity. neither did i want keep on complaining, but in june, i fell ill and general shoukat, an army general, not a PPP man was sent to see me. He had tears in his eyes when he saw me. The room was full of dust, the spring of the bed were jutting out, my back was examined, it was in terrible shapes and had scars on it. When he went the bed was changed. And also this question of maltreatment continues.

It has been said that i amended the constitutions, overlooking the fact that these amendments were through the national assembly of Pakisatn and though the senate and were not unilateral as they are being termed. They were constitutional amendments. What type of amendments are being made today in violation of the supreme court Judgment? These amendmentd are a gross disservice to the country and will contribute to the country’s breakdown. I shudder to think of the amendments on seperate electorates. My Lord, we operated under the umbrella of the constitution. Where is the constitution today? Wherein lies the validity of these amendments?
My lord, president Yahya Khan suffered from the misnomer that he had a legal framework order, which controlledeverything. I told him that once the Assembly comes, he will be out of the picture because the Assembly will be sovereign and the legal framework order will then become a vestigial organ and will have no relevance. So also today, whatever laws are passed, they will have no relevance for the coming Assembly.The moment the coming Assembly passes the first resolution of the first act,declaring its soverignty,everyone else will be out of the picture.

In the view of surrounding circumstances, i find that we are in a very delicate situation and i say without any vested interest that the sooner the people become participants, the sooner the people are mobilised for the supreme defense of Pakistan, the better it will be, because martial law de-martialises the nation. It is a breach, not a bridge.My Lord i speak as a patriot, wihtout casting aspersions on anyone’s judgment or decesions. My Lord, nobody has remained for million years, ceasars have come and gone;hitler spoke of a thousand years and within ten years was surrounded by ashes and rubbles. The people being the main repository of power, it is important that power be delegated to them soon and without further procrastination.
Now Your Lordship has given me a direction to improve on urdu, i am trying to be more eloquent in urdu. My Lord, when one is in a death cell, matters occur to one which have never occured to one before. I find ‘Saraiki’ language to be one of the best and sweetest languages in the sub-continent and i would like to end with these words of a Saraiki song which says:

dardaan di maari jindri aleel ay

http://www.farukh.itgo.com/D1.html
http://www.farukh.itgo.com/D2.html
http://www.farukh.itgo.com/D3.html
http://www.farukh.itgo.com/D4.html