By Marvi Sirmed
The week starting March 7 to March 12 had very special consequences for the Pakistan that was going to start its journey post-1949. The non-representative First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan started debate on the document that laid down the aims and objectives of the future constitution(s) of the country.
The infamous Objectives Resolution, presented on March 7, passed on March 12, 1949, generated alarm among the minority members as well as Muslim members believing in secular ideals. The resolution called for Islam to be made the basis of the future constitution and statutes while guaranteeing the rights of minorities.
The resolution, although in line with the demands of Abul Ala Maududi, the founder head of the orthodox Jamaat-e-Islami and the strongest opponent of the idea of Pakistan, did not please religious groups completely. The right hand man of Jinnah and his most trusted lieutenant, Liaquat Ali Khan, made sure to drift the business of the Constituent Assembly away from what Jinnah had laid down as the guiding principles in his address to the first session of the same assembly on August 11, 1947. Jinnah had clearly said: “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Before this address, Jinnah had made the point clear on a number of occasions.
If we go back to All India Muslim League’s Annual Session on March 23, 1940, in the entire proceedings, none of the speakers made any reference to Islamic system, shariah law or Islamic government — not even Muslim government. The discussion revolved around two main points, i.e. settling the constitutional question of united India through readjustment in its geographical units by making sets of Muslim majority states (please note the plural) as separate administrative units for Muslims; secondly, appropriate, effective and obligatory measures were demanded for the minorities in such territorial readjustments. The explanation of ‘minorities’, it goes without saying, was not restricted to Muslims (who by default would be in majority in such readjustments), but comprised diverse religious communities living in these parts of India.
In 1946 again, when the newly elected members of parliament from All India Muslim League adopted the word ‘state’ instead of ‘states’ in the Lahore Resolution of 1940, no reference to an Islamic system or theocracy could be traced in their discussions and documents relating to the objectives of the League or aims of partition. On April 11, 1946, Jinnah, while speaking to All India Muslim League’s (AIML) Convention in Delhi, said, AIML’s aim was not theocracy: “… neither do we want a theocratic state. None of us could deny the existence of religion as an important factor of our individual lives but there are other things that are very important for life”. He further elaborated it by giving examples of people’s social life and economic life, which he placed as more important things than theocratic considerations. Remember, it was 1946, just a year from his making that speech to the first Constituent Assembly of 1947. It may also be noted that for such views, Jinnah had to face edicts of being a kaafir (non-believer) from religious leaders in 1938.
Now let us get back to what happened in 1949 in a clear divorce from Jinnah’s principle of representative democracy, which should have had nothing to do with religion or theocracy. The session on March 7 starts with the recitation of the Holy Quran (it may be noted that under Jinnah’s presidentship it never started with it, which he viewed as dominance of one religion and against the principles of equality — the very principle for which Muslims had fought in united India for Pakistan) followed by Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan’s speech, at the end of which he presented the 10-liner Objectives Resolution that laid down the foundations of present Pakistan and buried the one Jinnah had envisioned and mobilised the Muslims of India to fight for.
The resolution sparked instant reaction and alarm among the minority members who started proposing amendments to it that very day. The 10 points of the Objectives Resolution reposed the sovereignty of the entire universe in Allah Almighty and delegated authority upon the state of Pakistan through chosen representatives of the people as “enunciated by Islam”, where Muslims would be enabled to order their individual and collective lives in accordance with the teachings of Islam set out in the Quran and sunnah with “adequate provisions for minorities to freely profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures”.
The debate that followed the tabling of this resolution shows almost all the minority members shrieking the dying principle of all-encompassing and egalitarian democracy. The opposition in the first Constituent Assembly comprised the 11-member Pakistan National Congress, all Hindus from East Pakistan. The pressure for Islamic provisions on the Pakistan Muslim League, the party in government, did not come only from its partners Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (led by Maulana Shabeer Ahmad Usmani), Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif from the then NWFP, etc, but was also from some of its own members from provincial chapters of PML according to the research paper written by Kauser Perveen on the Objectives Resolution debate. This pressure also came from the historical baggage of All India Muslim League that had portrayed itself as the sole representative of all the Muslims of united India, thus losing the ability to talk against religious considerations openly and categorically in the absence of the only strong leader who had led it without being able to create a second line leadership capable enough to spell out the secular principles.
Many leading historians and legal experts have been accomplices of the religious right-wing, within the PML and outside the Constituent Assembly, in distorting the spirit of a non-theocratic state Jinnah had been advocating for so long. Hamid Khan is not an exception when he writes his voluminous Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan. In this one-sided account of the Objectives Resolution debate, Hamid Khan picks up Jinnah’s quotes out of context, which are made to appear as supportive of what the resolution claimed, while conveniently ignoring every reference of Jinnah that he had been categorically spelling out against theocracy before and after Pakistan’s birth. Hamid Khan is not alone in this distortion; scores of Pakistani authors have done it on purpose and in utter ignorance.
The resolution, although differed from Maududi’s demands in not including the sentence “sovereignty belongs to Allah Almighty alone and government of Pakistan has no right other than to enforce the will of Allah”. Maududi also called for the shariah as basic law of Pakistan and revocation of all laws that were, in his view, repugnant to Islam. He had also proposed that no law should ever be passed in Pakistan that goes against shariah and that the government should exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Islamic shariah. There was no mention of minorities in the demands made by Maududi though.
Whereas the orthodoxy demanded by Maududi did not become part of the Objectives Resolution, the spirit of the resolution remained the same, which was adopted with increasing tilt towards Maududiisation in subsequent constitutions of Pakistan. The Islamic provisions kept on increasing with every coming constitution till 1973 that made the state of Pakistan, finally, an Islamic state, followed by the interventions of military dictator Ziaul Haq, who made this resolution an integral part of the constitution as against the previous ones that included it as a mere preamble. There matures Maududi’s Pakistan, the seeds of which were sown on March 12, 1949 when the Objectives Resolution was passed. Rest in peace Jinnah’s Pakistan!
The writer is an independent researcher and rights’ activist in Islamabad. She can be reached at marvi@marvisirmed.com
-Daily Times
I read your article with interest. The caption was catchy. You are a person of considerable talent and I admire it.
I am trying to understand what you have written. Maybe you can educate me.
You said Quaid was opposed to theocracy. I checked his speeches – yes he was opposed to it.
I have also read his speeches made during the 1940s. In these speeches more than 90 times he speaks about Islamic polity, Islamic law, Islamic governance and so forth.
My problem:
– If Jinnah was against theocracy, which he was, then why did he talk of Islamic polity and law?
– Doesn’t he sound contradictory?
– Or did he consider Islamic governance different than theocracy?
– His Aug 11 speech (with all the spin given to it) is after all just one of his speeches. Would it be academically and logically correct to make it as the sole source of his thought?
– If that’s the case where would you place his post-Aug 11 speeches in which he again stresses the role of Islam in state and nation building.
– In that case what place would you give to his last day speeches after his Aug 11 speech?
Coming back to theocracy. Would you consider the Prophetic state of Madinah as theocratic?
You also talked about the Objectives Resolution passed in the face of opposition to Hindu minority?
- Do you think the Pakistan movement was launched to placate the Hindu minority ignoring the aspirations of the Muslims – Islamic or non-Islamic notwithstanding?
- Do you think in democratic societies laws are passed unanimously with no opposition from any quarter?
– Has any minority the right to oppose the sovereign will of the majority?
- Does the Objectives Resolution ignore mentioning the minority rights and their safeguard?
You imply that the Objectives Resolution was passed after Jinnah’s death.
- Do you mean no law should have been passed after his death?
- Or that he alone had the right to make legislation?
- Did Jinnah ever arrogate to himself law making?
Your answer will help me and others to evaluate the situation in a better way.
Tarik Jan
Mr. Tariq Jan,
I completely support your arguments, put in the form of questions. Every argument is convincing. Actually secular people are just doing propaganda against Objectives Resolution, because they want to hijack Jinnah’s and Iqbal’s Pakistan. They have no rational position. They just want to impose their ideas nodemocratically.
Why this controversy all the time over the nature of the Pakistani state or what was Jinnah — a secular or nonsecular, when the issue has been settled in the constitution by Mr. Bhutto and his assembly. So Marvi please cool down. Shahid
Tarik Jan, Islam in no way supports the concept of Theocracy so naturally Quaid-e-Azam never supported such an idea. Simply, he wanted to create a state where Islamic principles such as equity, social justice, rule of law could prevail. In fact, Islamic principles if applied lead to a social welfare state and not a theocracy. Quaid’s concept of a state is misunderstood which leaves an impression that he has been contradictory in his speech and actions, which is totally a wrong perception.
Objective Resolution too does not deserve as much importance as we have given to it. It was just a document to please Ulma and no more…
You are avoiding all my questions and instead focusing on theocracy. Fine! Educate me: Would the application of Islamic laws make a state theocratic? Or is the Islamic state theocratic? If yes, then you have to explain the following speeches of Jinnah.
“Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and treasure, and which we hope others will share with us.” (See Jamil-ud-din Ahmad, Speeches and Statements of Mr. Jinnah, p. 175.
” The Constitution Assembly … would be able to enact laws for the Muslims. not inconsistent with the shari’ah laws, and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by the un-Islamic laws.” (See Sharifuddin Pirzada, Quaid -i-Azam Jinnah’s Correspondence, pp. 210-211 )
So, it is not just social justice, equality and rule of law. He is talking about Muslim ideology (yes ideology), shari’ah laws and so forth.
As to the Objectives Resolution, you insist it is not that important. Were the elders of the Pakistan Movement crazy to have passed it? It was the Constitution Assembly created to make the constitution. Almost the entire leadership of the Muslim League constituted it — people who made Pakistan possible. The most trusted companion of Jinnah (Liaqat Ali Khan) described the occasion of the passage of the Objectives Resolution as important as the creation of Pakistan. His words!
Well, as Shahid pointed out, it was retained by Mr. Bhutto’s assembly. Why did not the PPP disown it? If Jinnah’s assembly passed it to please the ‘ulama, whom did the PPP try to please by retaining it? After all, PPP is a secular party. History deserves some objectivity and not biases. Tarik Jan
I have gone through the article written by the learned author Ms Marvi Sirmad under the title: Death anniversary of Jinnah’s Pakistan. Since the contents of the of the article are short of the truth and the author has been very economical with true facts, it has become necessary to say few words about it.
There are three parts of the comments made hereunder.
Firstly, let us deal with the assertion made by the ‘ learned’ author that during the Quaid’s life, Holy Quarn was never recited during the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly. The fact is that on 10 August 1947, Shabir Ahmed Usmani recited the following verses of the Holy Quran Alla( Please see Quaid-e-Azam bahasiat Sarbarhe mamlukat by Kaleem Nishtar and Khutabat-e- Usmani). The English speaking, ultra liberal elite, west-toxified, which cater for those who are interested in their views least bother to read what is written in Urdu language. As a matter of fact since the record of the first Constituent Assembly and its debates are available therefore no one can either distort the truth or fabricate a lie in support of his or her views.
The next question is: does it make any difference whether the recitation was made during Quaid’s life or not. The speeches of the Quaid previous to and after the creation of Pakistan make it abundantly clear that he wanted the Constitution of Pakistan based on universal principles without labelling it either western or Islamic. The right wing was and is part of Pakistan and they are also entitled to express their views. On the contrary, this ultra secular elite which is thoroughly corrupt and morally insolvent which has been ruling this country for the last 65 years has nothing to its credit worth mentioning. This elite can accept U.S President taking oath on Bible, the Queen of England as a head of the Church but it can not accept even a word about Islam. Democracy means to them only what they believe.
The second aspect of the article of Ms Sirmad is her un-called for burst of criticim of some historians like Mr Hamid Khan. Ms Sirmad seems to think that perhaps she is the only one who has explored the history and her views are virgin and that the view of history she holds is the correct view. This is the first mistake which the pseudo intellectuals, self declared historian like her usually make. Mr Hamid Khan produced the contents of the debate and views of the minority members were for the first given place in book on our history. Mr Khan has made reference to the speeches of the Quaid which even if read as whole would reflect that the Quaid did not want the Constitution purely named and made after the west-minster model. The Constitution must have also, as the famous English journalist and historian Walter Baighot said, ceremonious part which gives it a distinction and identity. I have gone through the portion of Mr Hamid Khans’ book again and can safely state the critisim of Ms Marvi is baseless and a result of her prejudice and bias.
The third part is the over all impression of the said article. I can assure Ms Marvi that the causes of the malignant problems Pakistan is facing today are not the result of Islam. She has to make difference between Mullah and Islam. Pakistan has been ruled by the burreacracy ( both civil and military) and feudal classes for the last 65 years. These classes are responsible for the mess.
For the sake argument, let us assume that the Quaid Jinnah wanted secular state as it has been suggested. It may be pointed out that he never used the word ‘secular’ even in his speech oft quoted. The line most quoted is ” it has nothing to do with the business of the state” which has been interpreted to establish that he wanted a secular state. But Could he impose his views, being a democrat to the hilt, against the wishes and votes of all the members of Constituent Assembly? The answer is an emphatic no.
I would therefore suggest to Ms Sirmad that she must revisit her views and also learn to respect views of others.
Secular people always insist that in the light of 11 August 1947 speech of Jinnah, Pakistan should be a secular country. It is claimed that had he been alive, he would have never allowed the Objectives Resolution to be passed.
Following questions rise in every person, having knowledge of history and religion:
It is assumed that had Jinnah been alive, he would have not allowed the constituent assembly to pass Objectives Resolution. The question is that how could Jinnah prevent it. Does they want to prove that Jinnah was a dictator and could dictate constituent assembly and could reject will of the nation?
Is there any historical evidence to show that Jinnah was a secular person, and wanted secular constitution for Pakistan? Can it be substantiated that Jinnah ever declared that Pakistan will be a secular state, or Islam will not be the highest guideline for Pakistani constitution?
Can any reasonable person interpret the 11 August speech of Jinnah as a secular framework for the constitution of Pakistan?
Does the right of the interpretation of that speech lies within the handful of secular, Westernist and communist journalists and politicians, or to the elected representative parliament?
In his letter Iqbal clearly wrote to Jinnah that I new country should be founded to implement Shariah. From 1940 to 1947 people raised slogans, “Pakistan ka matlab kai? Laa Ilaha illallah”. If for a moment, we agree that in his speech Jinnah meant secularism, then on this U-turn should he be admired or denounced?
Jinnah refused to see his daughter because she married a non-Muslim guy. So could this Jinnah be a secular?
Many a times, Jinnah used to refer to the last prophet (PBUH) as “our great law giver, the prophet of Islam”. Isn’t this notion exactly against secularism?
The flag of Pakistan was approved by the constituent assembly in the life of Jinnah. It consisted of green area representing Muslims and white representing religious minorities. It clearly indicates that Muslims will always be Muslims and non-Muslims will remain non-Muslims before state. Jinnah never opposed this flag. Doesn’t it mean that Jinnah had changed his views that, ”Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”
Why do the champions of democracy forget their own principles on this issue and want to impose the opinion of an individual (if we suppose that it was as per interpreted by the secularists)?
How should we Muslims be secularists and support secularism, when secularism is in exact contradiction to Quran? Are we advised to abandon our faith to become secularists?
Tarik Jan has exposed the poor fondations of “The Attack to make Quaid a Secular Jinnah’. This attack is facilited by the occupied secular media, media which is playing in single just like uncle Sam. Our educational institutions and research institutes r spoiling time and money, but not facing real challenges from which the state of Pakistan facing basic threats
Tarik Jan has raised so logical questions, but i am astonished to see that enlightened establishment is not facing the challenge. Its means that they are only paper tigers, who can cry in particular media.
Dishonesty is their faith and murder of history is their diet