The Long March organised by the legal fraternity of Pakistan, which had set out from Lahore on June 13 ended peacefully in Islamabad on the same day. Although it has left in its wake many a question, which will be debated for long by the analysts and commentators, it can be termed as a complete success from the perspectives of both the organisers and the government. The organisers wanted more and more people to converge on Islamabad from all parts of the country and at the same time keep it orderly and peaceful. The event passed without any incident of violence and breach of peace, although the crowds at times were highly charged. The federal government, while taking all the precautionary security measures, did everything to facilitate the marchers on the long track from Lahore to Islamabad. It also represented a measure of responsible, accommodating and cooperative attitude of the government and the organisers of the Long March that the two sides signed and adhered to a code of conduct that kept crowds within the defined limits and, thus, ensured peace and security for the scared population, especially the diplomatic community of Islamabad. The credit for a successful and peaceful Long March, therefore, goes both to the organisers of the Long March and the federal government. The most significant and welcome aspect of the march is that, unlike the past long marches in Pakistan, this long march did not result in the breakdown of the political order and intervention of extra-constitutional forces. In 1958 Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan of Pakistan Muslim League organised a long march in West Pakistan against the manipulative politics of President Iskinder Mirza. This march led to the abrogation of 1956 constitution and imposition of martial law by the then of chief of the armed forces of Pakistan, General Ayub Khan. During the last phase of the popular mass movement against Ayub Khan in 1968-69, Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani of National Awami Party (NAP) mobilised the rural masses in East Pakistan to press for the acceptance of his demands, which also included the resignation of Ayub Khan and replacement of his (Ayub's) presidential with parliamentary system of government on the basis of direct elections, adult franchise and the principle of one-man-one vote. The huge processions taken out by Maulan Bhashani were used as a pretext by the then army chief General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan to force Ayub Khan to abdicate in his favour and appoint him (General Yahya) as chief martial law administrator (CMLA) after declaring martial law in the country. Yaha Khan's first act after taking over was the abrogation of 1962 constitution and dismantlement of Ayub Khan's political system. But there was no repetition of the past history in June 2008. Instead of some extra-constitutional development taking place, the atmosphere was peaceful, cordial and presented a positive look. National media and leading members of the civil society are praising both the government and the organisers of the march for avoiding confrontation, which could have overturned the whole democratic set-up. This was possible because unlike in the past, there is now in power in the centre a government, whose legitimacy, representative character and democratic credentials are beyond doubt. This government, which is a coalition of four major political parties occupying more than two third of seats in the National Assembly is implementing a consensus based political discourse on both internal and external issues. It must be noted that the functionaries of the government, especially the ministries of interior and information, constantly remained in touch with the organisers of the march and media to brief them about the measures the authorities had planned for facilitating the march. These measures, which included the provision of water and food, were already in place when the participants of the Long March arrived in the capital. More important than these measures was the fact that the PPP leadership and the leading members of coalition government had constantly and consistently expressed their solidarity with the Long March by endorsing its ultimate objective i.e. the restoration of judges deposed by the November 3 action of President (then general) Pervez Musharraf. Instead of blocking the Long March, the federal government pledged to provide everything that ensured the safety and suited the convenience of the participants and security for the important national assets and installations, which usually come under attack in such circumstances. It is a welcome development that such a big event passed peacefully without any untoward incident, and again the credit must be given to both the organisers and the government for making this possible. The Long March was an unprecedented event in that never in the whole history of Pakistan people of all ages and belonging to all walks of life with a high degree of motivation and dedicated to a single cause, converged on Islamabad to register their protest against the sacking of judges and press their demand for their restoration. At the same time the response of PPP-led government has also been unprecedented and exemplary. It would be no exaggeration to state that that the generosity and sincerity shown by the capital authorities has played decisive role in ensuring a successful and peaceful end to the Long March. Despite these facts, which have been openly acknowledged and appreciated by the media, members of civil society and even participants of the Long March, some elements portraying themselves as the leaders of the rally attempted to array public sentiments against the coalition government, particularly PPP leadership by levelling baseless allegations of having a "deal" with Musharraf or being unwilling to restore the deposed judges. These false claims are being made in the face of stark realities that have marked the first three months of the present government. The judges were released from captivity on the first day the prime minister addressed the National Assembly. By releasing and paying salaries to the judges, the government has virtually restored the judges. What remains to be done is only the formal re-instatement of the judges to which the PPP-led government is fully committed, but wants to do it through the parliament with a step-by-step approach. PPP wants to secure this objective through the proposed constitutional package, which is being studied by the coalition partners. Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), the second largest party in the National Assembly and a coalition partner of PPP at national and provincial level, urges immediate action on this issue by tabling a resolution in the parliament. The lawyers' community is of the view that the judges can be restored through an executive order and there is no need for approaching the parliament for this purpose. Thus, there are three different perspectives on the issue of the reinstatement of the deposed judges. On close examination one can easily discern that there is no wide divergence among these three perspectives, and all of them converge on the common and ultimate objective i.e. the reinstatement of judges and ensuring the independence of judiciary. The areas of divergence, small as they are, can be further reduced through a process of dialogue and discussion, and that is exactly what PPP leadership has all along been proposing to its coalition partners. Two of the coalition partners, ANP and JUI-F accept the argument advanced by the PPP. Even PML-N is not averse to the idea of accomplishing this task through a parliamentary resolution. In order to facilitate the whole process, PML-N has also agreed to retain the judges, who took oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued by General Musharraf on November 3, but only as ad hoc judges. Some of the members of lawyers' community, however, are not prepared to accept these PCO-judges and want to remove them as they were appointed under an illegal and unconstitutional order. This may sound an extreme and uncompromising position. But in the realm of politics one comes across different shades of opinions, some of which do look inflexible and unbending. But compromise is the art of politics and, given the will, a way out can be found even in seemingly most difficult and impossible situation. The lawyers' community, which has spearheaded undoubtedly an unprecedented movement for upholding of the rule of law in the country, should look for a way out of this complex and difficult situation, and keep those political parties, who lack capacity to mobilise the people on their own, at bay and prevent them from taking political mileage out of the present situation at the cost of a movement which has sustained for more than one year against every sort of heavy odds because of its noble cause.