Parliament is a democratic repository of the citizen’s will, in futuristic investment to make the country’s parliamentary institutions work well and meet the expectations of the electorate. The fragile but ever -evolving democracy of Pakistan occupies numerous challenges and threats; the initial 9 years delay in constitution making, though it could barely breath for 2 years (1956-1958) paving way for first martial law in the country legitimized by higher judiciary in the name of ‘doctrine of necessity’. Thus, the unfortunate episode followed by various such eras until 2008 leaving Pakistan not only in ever-increasing socio-political and economic pitfalls but the mandate of the people of Pakistan was barely respected in the Parliament of Pakistan. Parliamentary democracies around the globe have developed themselves according to the rising global trends of public participation and increased importance of competitive elections. Several years have been taken accountable for how in the process of a democracy has strike a balance with authority and military rule. Peoples’ party government in 2008 won not only the mandate of the people but completed its five years term in Pakistan. As much as it sounds to be a successful party for a country that has ever yearned for democracy, the theory of Huntington completely fits itself when he states, “threats to democracy are likely to come not from generals and revolutionaries…but rather from participants in the democratic process”. With great achievements, the political party lost its attitude towards the state and caused greater threats to the parliamentary democracy. What the party failed to understand was the accountability remains to be the biggest key to the success of a parliamentary democracy. Democracy has remained in shackles for Pakistan. For the first time, the democratic government led by the peoples’ party Pakistan was about to complete its tenure of five years, but how could this had been possible without having a twisted plot. In the state of Pakistan, either the governments are never satisfied or the people. Tahir-ul-Qadri, a scholarly figure in Pakistan, the founder of Minhaj ul Quran and someone who has always been a great supporter of military rule in Pakistan, turns his way back to Pakistan all the way from Canada and declares himself to be the protector and care taker of Pakistan. It’s good to realize that there are sentiments that exist within the people considering themselves to be saviors of the nation but the only thing problematic were the way he came and conquered the capital with massive support against the government. These were the same people who gave their mandate to the ppp government and cheered on the success of the 18th amendment. The government led by the ppp while failing to cater a weakening economy and countering the terrorist insurgencies, did not want to lose hold over democracy. The long march settling for a dharna in the capital demanded the National assembly to summon and end. Accepting this offer would have brought about a decline in the tenure of the ppp government which was soon to face the new elections within a few months. Had it been any other country, stable in its democracy and policies would have taken such an episode as a mere joke and neglected it without any fear. Whereas in Pakistan, Such episodes have always remained to exists a tingling stone for a struggling democracy challenging the writ of the government. According to the Asia Report of International Crisis Group 2013, the PPP led government, was successful in completing its five years tenure based on its focus on constitutionalism, restoring parliamentary system and setting a constructive bipartisanship with the opposition. Despite of these achievements, stability and democracy in Pakistan seemed to be two opposite sides of a coin. The more open and transparent the government was in its matters of parliamentary proceedings, the more authoritative the executive became on the legislature. The coalition that started between the two leading parties in the parliament soon started to drift apart when the government refused to restore the sacked judges. Tensions further widened when under the pressure of opposition, the PPP government had to restore the judges back. This pressure had challenged the power of the executive which the PPP government exercised every now and then. The constitutional trichotomy of power upholds greater value in the parliamentary democracy where the Supreme Court is given the authority to o protected and to safeguard the national security and the functioning of the government in a country. However, during the PPP regime, this trichotomy met a serious imbalance while the Supreme Court became a pivotal decision-making body, challenging the policies of the parliamentarians Followed by the succeeding government, the challenges to the parliamentary democracy remain unworkable. The serious repercussions faced by the parliament were not solely because of the sit-ins and the long march but it was also because of the performance of the parliamentarians. Throughout the democratic regimes, attendance and the performance of parliamentarians have remained to be a setback for the country’s stability of democracy. The use of parliamentary democracy has always been used in the wrong way. It is true that the misuse of power has been the way Pakistan’s system has been functioning. The inexperienced politicians have always found a way to exploit the vote of the people. Similarly, the government of Pakistan Muslim League (N) created the similar menace in the country. Asia Report of International Crisis Group 2013, states that the parliament and the committees failed to understand the effective surveillance of the executive. Parliamentarians and their attendance have always remained to be of a greater concern for the public. So much so, the parliament and its functioning have also been affected because the ministries have never been under veteran governance. One of the best examples would be Shahbaz Sharif, who was the chief minister of Punjab, held four different ministries under his own supervision. Therefore the works for the people have been neglected. Except from the performance of the government itself, the challenge to the parliamentary sovereignty was the stringent role of the opposition. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf as an opposition played a key role in keeping the government always engaged. One year to completion of the PMLN led government; the PTI started a long march ending in a dharna outside the parliament house Islamabad. The dharna lasted for about more than a month bringing limelight to the rigging of elections. The opposition did manage to gather a presentable number of supporters of the claim. The opposition proposed that the vote acquired by the current government has been under the criminal offence of rigging. The long march challenged the writ of the government and made it difficult for them to bring about a sustainable parliamentary system. According to the research of PILDAT 2018, leading the menace was the Faizabad dharna by the demagogues of Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan in which the government had to bow down to the agreement and signed a negotiation. The chief of army staff did help mediate the two parties in order to come to terms otherwise the dharna had shaken the writ of the government by bringing violent means of protest and DG rangers distributing cash among the people. The Faizabad sit in took a serious turn as it mangled the private property and assets of people. SUSTAINING PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY COMPARISON WITH INDIA The developmental affairs of the parliamentary democracy begin together in India and Pakistan. Both the countries have been a part of similar colonial rule but despite of that the events following the evolution process of the parliamentary democracy were widely stretched between the two neighboring states. The development in both the states started according to the modern democratic norms and today Indian Parliament is considered to be the largest working parliamentary democracy in the world with seasoned parliamentarians whereas Pakistan lost its track to parliamentarian set up to martial law. Parliamentary democracy sustained its foothold in Indian in regions which possess a political culture imbued with collective memories of the freedom struggle and longer exposure to the British rule. This became the most Vitol element for the parliamentary democracy and its success. Beginning together India did realize its colonial era as a lesson for the future and made sure not to become a victim of it anytime soon whereas even today Pakistan is found to be stuck within the boundaries of the colonial era. For a long time, India has struggled with sustaining democracy but why t is termed to be seasoned is because it did not fall under the military power. Critics state that both the countries and their militaries ha come from the same though process and the feeding of the Britishers but India at a very earliest level had kept the military involvement at bay. Nehru took away all the privileges provided to the army and shunned them sooner in time before they got themselves deeper into policy making. To mention a few, he made massive budget cuts from to army and entitled the parliamentarian with many benefits and when the chief marshal tried to convene the matter, he was warned not to think about it. This comes as a small indicator of reminding the military where the wind Is blowing. Whereas in Pakistan, the first military coup was welcomed with a very famous quote saying “Pakistan mein ab toh mashallah ho Gaya,” which meant that with the grace of God things in Pakistan will be better now. The gap with this widened as India constituted its first constitution in 1950 and Pakistan made a failed attempt to do so in the 1956. The constitutional development had been delaying the process due to which the first election in Pakistan took place in 1970 and in India, it happened to be 18 years earlier. The Indian parliament has been a useful tool to question the government time and again. The Indian people have kept at bay all the challenges that came across in sustaining the parliamentary democracy. According to Tawana, India has abrogated all the powers given to the government which were alarming for the parliamentary development. The Article 356 remains to be one big indication in which the power of the president was that he could grant the right to the central government, if deemed necessary to take control of the state machinery, if the state government are inefficient in performance. This power has been exploited by the central governments at different occasions many times in the initial most years. The abrogation of these rights given to the president was a Vitol step towards the sustainability of democracy. One of the most crucial challenges for Indian parliamentary system has remained to be the voters’ turnout. According to Prabhakar, 2015 engaging people in the electoral process was the most difficult part and voters’ turnout used to be less than 54 percent. In the recent elections however, the turnout remained to be more that 67 percent. This is because the Indian government made sure to engage the Public interests are served and the governments are held accountable. Not only were this but with time, people allowed to contest elections and become a part of political sphere which brought the confidence of people among the Lok Sabha. Comparing the initiative of parliamentary democracy in India with Pakistan, Pakistan has always remained to be weak when it comes to politics. The only thing that prevails is the party politics and the private vested interests in the government. Although Pakistan had actively reframed the constitution, the biggest example of the 18th amendment, but despite of that, the stability could not be maintained. Similarly, the voters’ turnout in Pakistan still remains to be 51 percent as per the report of the Election Commission of Pakistan. The standards set by Pakistan to chase the ideals of parliamentary democracy have always been too high that leaders and parliamentarians have been demagogues trying big speech and unable to fulfill the ideals. In the 14th and 15th Lok Sabha in India, the suspension and vote of no confidence motion was largely witnessed among the parliamentarian on their conduct of affairs and misuse of power. This similar problem does exist in Pakistan as well but the behavior towards trying to eradicate the misuse of power has been different. Another point to ponder that is the connection between the local bodies and the parliamentarians. In 2008 the parliamentarian conducted Round table conference for the local bodies to study and understand the parliamentary democracy in India and what challenges it is facing. This activity helped the government reach to the grass root level of the problem and to eradicate it in a much better way. In Pakistan, the essence of parliamentarians is their constituency with which they often remain to be aloof with. Democracy is not a finished product, but it is a continuation of a dynamic process. Indian parliamentary democracy is prone to problems because no parliament in the world is perfect. Tawana writes that Indian parliamentary democracy has failed to mirror the aspirations of the people. The democratic culture has often brought about the centralization of power. Although there has never been a military rule In India, but spate of defection, peoples’ mandate and trust gets grossly violated, political corruption, violence, separatist movements, instability of government at several occasions has created a chaos often times for the people. The opposition on both sides the role of opposition has remained weak and divided. The opposition is the shadow government which is supposedly versatile and performs legislation with coordination of the government however, the role of opposition has itself provided a tough time to the sustainability of the parliamentary democracy.