Democratic countries often find cohesion in the vibrant noise of their democratic processes. Without this din, we would face the ominous silence akin to a graveyard. Therefore, we have every reason to remain cautiously optimistic about the current situation in our country. However, one crucial prerequisite must not be overlooked: Are we standing on high moral ground? This is a question each of us should ponder in solitude. Let me reflect on events from over a century ago. Exploiting the chaos of war, the British government pushed through the Rowlatt Bill on March 18, 1919, which imposed wartime restrictions on the civil liberties of all Indians. This provoked Mr Jinnah and some others to resign from the Imperial Legislative Council in protest over the bill’s passage. But worse was yet to come. The British, on a misguided path, continued to err. On April 13, 1919, Martial Law was imposed in Punjab. That same day, as Brigadier R. E. Dyer waxed his moustache, his troops fired 1,650 rounds into a crowd of unarmed civilians peacefully protesting the legislation at Amritsar’s Jallianwala Bagh. By sunset, 1,516 shots had found their mark, resulting in 379 deaths, 192 serious injuries, and almost 1,000 suffering minor injuries. The outrage was immediate – Sir Rabindranath Tagore renounced his knighthood, Gandhi returned his Kaiser-i-Hind award, and Jinnah lamented that even stones would be moved by the tragedy, branding Dyer a butcher. From April 13, 1919, to August 15, 1947, the British lost their moral right to govern India, ultimately withdrawing from a nation comprising one-fifth of humanity. Dyer was subsequently called back and retired, while Sir Michael O’Dwyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjab who sanctioned the massacre, was shot dead in London in 1940 by a freedom fighter. Despite these significant events, many historians often overlook the crucial lesson: from April 13, 1919, to August 15, 1947, the British had lost their moral right to govern India, ultimately withdrawing from a nation comprising one-fifth of humanity in just over 28 years of their march towards folly. Fast forward to more recent times, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto held a lengthy meeting with his once-trusted Minister for Production Mirza Rafi Raza, in January 1977. Raza warned Bhutto against pursuing his nuclear ambitions, cautioning that both he and his family could face very grave consequences. While Raza believed Bhutto would win the elections in a fair contest, he doubted whether Bhutto would be allowed to benefit from that victory. Bhutto remained resolute, but within two months, Raza’s prediction proved accurate. Bhutto, however, proceeded with cabinet formation keeping Raza out of it as the trust deficit between the two men had grown beyond all proportions. At the oath-taking ceremony, the Secretary General of Defence Ghulam Ishaq Khan turned to Rafi Raza and told him,” I hear I have to congratulate you too.” Mass protests erupted, leading Bhutto to declare martial law in three cities across two provinces. This action was challenged in courts, resulting in conflicting rulings from two Chief Justices. Eventually, the temporary martial law was lifted, and dialogue resumed among politicians, with some military commanders also present in certain meetings. During one such meeting, a general cited the number of shots fired in Lahore and their accuracy as justification for new elections. When questioned about his statement, he ominously replied that his troops would shoot to kill, rather than fire in the air, once they were confident that the government reflected the people’s will. Less than six months after the Bhutto-Raza meeting, General Ziaul Haq summoned the Law Secretary in the dead of night to inform him that he had imposed martial law. He instructed the Secretary to seek the consent of all four Chief Justices of the High Courts to become governors of their respective provinces. The Law Secretary hesitated, pointing out that one Chief Justice had previously declared martial law in Lahore illegal. However, Zia urged him to proceed. When the Law Secretary returned, he reported that all four Chief Justices had agreed to serve as governors. By the time the citizens learned of martial law, it had already been sanctioned by the judiciary, which would later grant the dictator the authority to amend the constitution as well. Nevertheless, it is worth recalling how Zulfikar Ali Bhutto responded to Rafi Raza’s concerns about the potential hazards to him and his family. He expressed his commitment towards building an egalitarian society, modernizing the country, and bringing happiness to people unfamiliar with the concept. He acknowledged that tears would always be shed but he wanted fewer tears to be shed and less bitterly. The purpose of these random reflections is not to assign blame or determine who was right or wrong during the pre- or post-Independence eras; that responsibility lies with future historians. Instead, I seek to highlight the importance of maintaining high moral standards, regardless of our internal challenges and financial struggles. We must resist the temptation to be swayed by momentary expediencies and remain steadfast in our principles. The writer is a senior global health and public policy specialist.