Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri - Chairman, Minaj-ul-Quran International HARDtalk

discovered in Lyme Bay in Dorset. Now it is time for HARDtalk.

When a radical reform must Muslim cleric, Tahir-ul-Qadri, returned it

to his native Pakistan from Canada last December, he promised a

Million man March on parliament to. The government and bring in

electoral reform, in the event, only tens of thousands of

protesters turned out, and just four days into the much, he made a

deal with the government. Tahir-ul- Qadri says he also wants to reclaim

his lamb from the terrorists and extremists. Is his voice of wires,

or is he an out of touch, Tahir-ul-Qadri, welcome to HARDtalk.

When you went back in December to Pakistan, you said you wanted to

save the state. Save it from what exactly? I mean that Pakistan is

known to be the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, it was formed for

democracy, the rule of law, for social and economic justice, for

protection of human rights, but nothing has been delivered

according to the constitution of Pakistan, and nothing has been

delivered as the fruits of democracy to the people. The

government has totally failed to establish, to stabilise the

institutions, and to establish the government in different areas of

Pakistan, and to eradicate extremism and terrorism from our

land. Pakistan has become a threat to neighbouring countries and a

threat to the whole world because of the import of terrorism and the

export of terrorism. We have become a sinking ship. How many people

agree with you? You say that you wanted to turn Islamabad into

Tahrir Square, you said you wanted a mass protest movement outside

Parliament, where is it? There is nobody there. The problem is that

when we started from Pakistan, Punjab, 25,000 buses which were

bought by the Government of Punjab to pressurise the people, and the

advance money was given back, all the bookings were cancelled. They

captured their licences and their permits. The police captured it

punctured, and all the roads were blocked. People had to walk to

Islamabad on different tracks, hiding... going to different routes,

so instead of this, people were successful in reaching there.

Hundreds of thousands. You say hundreds of thousands, the

authorities in Pakistan had a very different figure. The Pakistani

intelligence bureaux say that 40,000 people turned out. The

Islamabad police say 30,000, and other intelligence agencies say

50,000. A very big difference in the figure. I would tell you about

the Pakistani intelligence agency. When they say 10, you imagined that

it is 100. They always tell lies. When they mention 20, it is 200.

This is the practice, the norm that has given to them. They are not

allowed to mention the real figures. They will be caught by their

officers. They will say, why did you allow the people to a riot in

such a large number? -- to arrive. Why are you calling for regime

change for a democratically elected government? The party of the late

Benazir Bhutto, they won the elections fair and square in 2008.

I never wanted to topple the government. That is why we waited

for five years. So they could complete their tenure. So they may

be able to deliver whatever they can deliver. But every single day,

the dead bodies they are finding on the land, terrorist attacks are

everywhere, the bodies were there for four days, they had nobody to

bury them, there is no law and order, people are not getting food,

not getting education, there are no health facilities, investment in

the social sector, no stability and democracy. The only demand an

election... why do you say that they engineered the polls? I said

you, when they won the election in 2008, the European Union and other

international bodies said that the election was wholly free and fair.

Why are you implying that they are trying to Reed this coming

election? This is very clear. I have been part of this process. I

have contested in elections and I had seen everything with my own

eyes. The only thing that is required, money, might and

manipulation. You say money is needed, but you have been running

television advertisements trying to push forward your agenda, where are

you getting your money from? have hundreds of thousands of

members. They pay a fee to our party. In Pakistan and overseas

Pakistani. We have spent millions of rupees. We have established up

to 1,000 schools with our own resources. We have established an

orphanage for 1,000 orphan boys. We have established our own

institution, Welfare Society, we are spending billions of billions

of Reed -- rupees. But the other parties are also carrying out

similar social welfare programmes. You have your Islamic organisation,

but I want to ask you this, you say that you are doing all this in the

name of the people of Pakistan, you have formed your own political

party, and yet you do not have a single seat in the National

Assembly. What is your mandate to do all of this? The authority and

the right belongs to the people of Pakistan. A lot of parties have

popular support despite the fact they are not sitting in parliament.

Because of the corrupt electoral system, we did not get any seats.

Because when I was a Member of Parliament, I have resigned after

two years. How many seats did you Party have at the time? Just a

couple? I won my seat. But since I am telling that the whole process,

the law says that you cannot spend more than one million rupees on a

seat, and more than 1.5 million rupees for a National Assembly seat,

but the actual money spent is about 100 million rupees, against the law.

It violates the constitution. So the common man is unable to fight

the election. We have contested four people, not the winning horses,

that is the problem. You say that you command widespread appeal, but

I tell you what the Conservative MP says, who for many years was an

aide to Benazir Bhutto. He says I challenge his appeal to the people

of Pakistan and his credibility. He has no nationwide support across

the four provinces of Pakistan, and he goes further, he says that you

have no commitment to democracy. What do you say to that? He is the

conservative British Pakistani, Conservative MP, who for many years

was a aide to the late Benazir Bhutto. I would not comment on

anybody's statement, but I will say that people have seen the gathering

of 23rd December, hundreds of thousands of people were there, and

for the last 65 years, this was the biggest people's gathering in the

history of Pakistan. You can beat the newspapers. Any English

newspaper has not claimed that any other gathering, except this one...

I have to challenge that. When Benazir Bhutto went back in October

2007, just before she was assassinated, 3 million turned out

to meet her. When her son spoke recently, again, hundreds of

thousands turned out. You had tens of thousands.

One can say 3 million, one can say 4 million, but if you go through

all newspapers published, on 24th December...

We are not going to fight. They say it is the biggest gathering. If we

do not have a populist base, where do these people come from?

figures are disputed. There can be a dispute on the figures. What

about the fact that you are not seen with somebody -- as somebody

with proper democratic credentials? Did you yourself are not say it in

December, there are only two institutions in Pakistan that are

functioning, one is the judiciary and one is the armed forces, and

that has made people worried, that in some way you are trying to

invite the military to come back into Pakistani politics. He is not

an authority on the politics. not just him. He has a right to say.

What ever he wants. Address the substance of the criticism.

substance is that when... I never invited the military or the

judiciary to get involved in politics, or to get involved in the

next coming government. My only concern was that these institutions

should ensure for the stability of Pakistan, the stability of

democracy, they are the people who are coming to take over the next

government. They are not parties and people, they should be totally

honest and impartial, so they ensured the transparency, fairness,

This has never happened. The same words have been declared by the

Supreme Court of Pakistan. This was a judgment in June 2012. This type

of standard has never taken place. Can I just carry on? I am sure

everybody would say that they want free and fair elections in Pakistan.

With the military, can I ask you, can I put to you what they say?

There are reports and informed speculation that the most

widespread theory behind your return to Pakistan was that it was

prompted by the military and that they are turning to you to

destabilise the be political scene and potentially create a situation

in which they elections are delayed. Are you being used as a tool by the

military? I totally get this accusation. The same type of

accusation has been launched at the British establishment behind me.

The same false allegation has been launched at the American

establishment was behind the doctor. This is totally wrong. There was a

categorical statement that they were not behind him. They had been

making false accusations. They have never been able to establish

anything. And they had been making these claims for four or five years.

People are not getting food, treatment, justice, rule of law.

They're not getting protection of their life, their wealth, their

business. People are not protecting their lives Foster and these are

the reasons -- but it in their lives. You keep seeing that people

are behind you. We have to deal with the fact that the two main

parties have the most seats in the National Assembly. You made a deal.

Usage you would have a one million person March. -- you said. After

four is, you made a declaration that the Government. People were

scratching their heads. They wondered what you had achieved. We

knew that elections had to be held in Pakistan by June. Traditionally,

according to the constitution, elections are called, there has to

be an interim administration. What have you cheat? This is a relevant

question. -- what have you cheat? There were two options. Either

martial law would have common, of which I have never preferred. I am

absolutely against it. I am against military intervention. I am pro-

democracy, pro-German rights, pro political process. If we have taken

any action, and the military would have taken over the country. We did

not want this. We were not there for this purpose. Then there was

the peacefu the peacefu dispute. Peaceful and democratic

settlement is only possible through negotiation. We entered into that.

That is the only democratic way to settle the dispute. What is the

dispute you are trying to settle? What did you achieve? It does not

seem like you achieve much. The elections had to be held. You had

to have an interim government anyway. We received the maximum

which was achievable within the limits of being peaceful and within

the limits of a democratic settlement. Whatever was possible,

we achieved. The constitution, article 52, it mentioned the

legibility of the candidates. This was never enforced in the history

of Pakistan. It was agreed upon that in coming elections, all

candidates would be scrutinised. They would get clearance for 30

days. They would be judged and scrutinised in the light of article

62 and 63. Then they would be allowed to enter a campaign.

what else did you achieve? Did you not call for the Army to be

consulted on the interim administration? You called for that

and it was rejected. I did. I said it initially. Insisting on this

aspect would have invited the intervention of the military and

would have derailed democracy. that case, but you have just said

you were not in favour of the military being involved yet, in

those discussions you said you wanted them. I do not want military

intervention. You talk about the judiciary. A senior lawyer at the

Supreme Court said that the deal in practice would have no effect

because it did not change much. He said it was a face-saving exercise

to allow Tahir ul-Qadri to leave Islam. You have no mandate to make

these demands, he says. Every citizen has a mandate. Every

citizen. The constitution does not give sovereignty to the Government.

Sovereignty in Pakistan does not rest in Parliament. Sovereignty

originally rests with the people of Pakistan. And they will get the

chance to vote? And they will get the chance to vote? The people in

Pakistan have this right. He can ask for democracy. He can claim

that he can peacefully protest for rule of law. He controlled his

fortune and rights. He can stand up against corruption. He can stand up

for the stabilising of the process of democracy. And the voters will

decide when those elections take place and we will see what happens.

You have mentioned terrorism, of which, of c which, of c a plague for

Pakistan, sadly. On a regular basis, we hear about people being killed

in terrorist acts. You say you want to reclaim Islam from the

extremists. Do you believe it is in the hands of militants? The vast

majority of Muslims are peace- loving people. This is a tiny

minority, even in Pakistan. have seen. You were there for four

based. There was a large crowd of ladies and boys. There was no kind

of violence. It did not take place. There was no violence between the

nation of Pakistan. I am asking a different matter. In March 2010,

you should have fat while saying violence is violence. You said

there was no justification. I want to ask you now, as a Muslim cleric,

do you believe that Islam is in the hands of extremists and militants?

I put it to you that that is a minority bring you look at the

world would community of Muslims. Unfortunately, Islam has been

hijacked. This ideology. The concept of she had. The concept of

Sharia law has been highlights -- hijacked. Peaceful Muslims, P

peaceful people everywhere. This is not according to democracy, Sharia

law. Unfortunately, I have stood up against the present system for the

last five years. The parliament has been there but they have never been

able to pass a national policy against terrorism. They have no end

wishing to get rid of terrorism. The Government has consistently

said that it is opposed to the acts of terrorism. It does condemn every

act of violence that kills innocent civilians. They say that on a

regular basis. I am not condoning violence but what do you say to

somebody who says that suicide is outlawed in Islam through clear

injunctions in the Koran, fighting and dying in self-defence is not so,

he says that if it means attacking you see pilot scheme power but it

is for that reason. The question is this, is a violence always animated

by a Islam or is it some times for what people might on nationalist

reasons? Let me explain the first part. They condemn terrorism but it

is not for condemnation. It is to practise. It is to enforce. They

are unable to pass this off. If you could address this briefly.

Violence is the second part. And nobody is allowed to act or commit

any act of violence on any person. You are only allowed to fight

against the come battens on the battlefield. You can fight for your

defence only on the battlefield with the combatants. You can't

commit any act of violence against any non-Muslim, whether he belongs

to a country that has started War One and Muslim country. The

peaceful people always get the peace and security. You are never

allowed to perform any act of violence. I reject that. A final

brief question. Seven years you have lived in Canada. You have come

back to Pakistan. Will you stay or go but cannot do? I am now here

until I complete the whole mission to put democracy on the right track.