Objectives-resolution-the-first-dagger-in-pakistans-heart

Daily Times has commissioned a 7 part series from the former Governor of Punjab  Shahid Hamid, the first part of which appears in today’s paper.  It is about time we revisited this document and had a debate on it.  So it is most welcome but perhaps choosing a former civil servant, cabinet minister and the governor of Punjab, hence an entrenched establishment man steeped in state-mythology, was not a very good idea.    Here is an excerpt from the article:
The present Constitution was enacted by the National Assembly in April 1973 and came into force on August 14, 1973. The Objectives Resolution passed by the first Constituent Assembly in 1949 and included, at that time, 280 Articles and 6 Schedules became its preamble. The power to amend the Constitution was contained in Article 239.
As originally enacted, the Constitution could be amended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Assembly and a majority, not two-thirds, of the total membership of the Senate.
Alteration in the territorial limits of a province required, in addition to the above, the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the Assembly of that Province. The original Article was substituted by the present one bearing the same number through General Zia-ul Haq’s Revival of the Constitution Order 14 of 1985 after which any amendment requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the Senate also. Order 14 of 1985 was ratified/ validated by the 8th Amendment passed by Parliament later that year.
During the last 36 years there have been 17 amendments to the Constitution. Some of these amendments, especially the 8th and the 17th, amended several articles. There has been some comment lately of a return to the original Constitution. This appears impractical for more than one reason.
The Constitution is a living document that needs periodic amendment to meet ever-changing social, economic and political challenges. India has amended its Constitution many more times than we have. Some of the changes made by us since 1973 have been positive in nature while others have had a negative impact. Further amendments should focus on strengthening the democratic institutional framework of the State. Only those previous changes should be targeted for omission, which tend to weaken or negate the aspirations set out in the pre-amble to the Constitution.


Through the aforesaid Order 14 of 1985, Zia-ul Haq made the Objectives Resolution of 1949 a substantive part of the Constitution and an annexure in addition to being the preamble of the original Constitution. A number of persons have voiced the view in recent days that making the Objectives Resolution a substantive part of the Constitution was a detrimental development. There are many others who believe that the Resolution well and truly embodies the national vision. The Resolution is re-produced below so that everyone can read and judge for themselves:
“Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;
This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a Constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan;
Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;
Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed;
Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah;
Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures;
Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed;
Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes;
Wherein the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured;
Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded;
So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.”
The pre-amble to the Constitution says that the minorities are to be allowed freely to profess and practice their religions. However, in the annexure inserted by Zia-ul-Haq’s Order 14 of 1985 the word ‘freely’ is missing. Was this a deliberate or accidental omission?
Would the Quaid have supported the Objectives Resolution had he been alive in 1949 or was it a departure from his vision of Pakistan?
Those who hold the latter view refer to his August 11, 1947 speech. It appears to me, with respect to those who hold a contrary opinion, that there is nothing in the Objectives Resolution that runs counter to the Quaid’s speech which, in any case, is not to be read in isolation but together with his many other speeches before and after the creation of Pakistan.
It is high time, however, that the omission of the word ‘freely’ in the Annexure to the Constitution be made good.
First of all, the governor is wrong:  the Objectives Resolution in entirety goes against the Quaid’s speech.   I suggest that Mr. Hamid revisit Jinnah’s speech again:

I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community, because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalis, Madrasis and so on, will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. 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.

A simple comparison between the text of the Objectives Resolution and the speech will show that the vision of Pakistan given at this very important opening statement to the constituent assembly by Jinnah did not have any room for state’s partiality towards any particular community especially the majority.  All his life he had fought against majoritarianism and therefore he would have never agreed to its blatant expression.   Justices Kayani and Munir, giving their view in the famous Munir Report,  wrote at length the basic points of departure between Objectives’ Resolution and the Jinnah’s vision.
The Differences between Jinnah’s vision and the Objectives Resolution

The Quaid-i-Azam has said that in the new state sovereignty would rest with the people. The Resolution starts with the statement that sovereignty rests with Allah. This concept negates the basic idea of modern democracy that there are no limits on the legislative power of a representative assembly.

There is a reference to the protection of the minorities of their right to worship and practice their religion, whereas the Quaid-i-Azam had stated that there would be no minorities on the basis of religion.

The distinction between religious majorities and minorities takes away from the minority, the right of equality, which again is a basic idea of modern democracy.

The provision relating to Muslims being enabled to lead their life according to Islam is opposed to the conception of a secular state.

  if during Quaid-i-Azam’s life, Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister had even attempted to introduce the Objectives resolution of the kind that he got through the Assembly, the Quaid-i-Azam would never have given his assent to it (MUNIR REPORT)

So the governor is wrong when he says that Objectives Resolution is not in contravention to Jinnah’s 11th August speech.  He, however, qualifies this with the same old claim that Jinnah’s speech should be read in context of his struggle for Pakistan and other statements he made.   Let us assume that it is of no significance that the 11th August speech was made by the father of the nation to the constituent assembly which about to draft the constitution of Pakistan.  Let us forget that the speech makes no reference to Islam or ascribes any role to it- despite it being the most important policy speech by any Pakistani leader- let alone the founding father of the nation state itself.   Even then the argument is specious for several reasons.
The good governor probably hasn’t had the opportunity to study Jinnah’s pronouncements in detail.  Whatever references, few and far between, that Jinnah might have made to Islamic principles of equality, fraternity and justice as a politician trying to indigenize his own liberal secular ideology,  his record as the president of the Muslim League suggests a strong unwillingness to commit any constitution or manifesto to any religious or divine mission.   There were several occasions that a section of Muslim Leaguers tried to bring an amendment to All India Muslim League’s constitution and mission state to give it a more Islamic tinge.  The most notable of these was when Dr. A H Kazi of Bombay tried to introduce a resolution in 1943′s Delhi session which would commit the Muslim League to Quran and Sunnah as basic principles of the future constitution of Pakistan.  Jinnah objected and said that it would amount to a  ”censure” on every Muslim Leaguer.  Needless to say the resolution did not carry.    On another occasion Jinnah discovered that his young colleague Raja of Mahmudabad was telling people that Pakistan would be an Islamic state and the dictatorship of the Quran.   Raja of Mahmudabad was asked to distance himself from the League.   When asked if Pakistan would be based on Sharia,  Jinnah answered point blank: “Sharia? Whose Sharia? Shia Sharia? Sunni Sharia?  No I shall have a modern state”.  No doubt Jinnah referred to Islamic principles of equality, fraternity, justice and brotherhood of man.   These essential principles of Islam were to be reflected without any prejudice to any one and these essential principles of Islam are at the end of the day what Islam has common with the idea of secularism.  So instead of confusing the language and assuming that secularism and Islam are mutually exclusive, let us see that Jinnah’s vision was of a Pakistan that was democratic, egalitarian and without prejudice to anyone regardless of religion, caste or creed.  Is such a Pakistan possible under the Objectives Resolution?  I fear not.
However Objectives Resolution was the first dagger.  The principle of parity in the constitution of 1956 was the second.   Ayub’s martial was the third blow.  The refusal of the West Pakistani establishment and the PPP to accept election results of 1970 was the fourth.   The constituton of 1973 was the fifth and Jinnah’s Pakistan was laid to rest when the state decided to assume on itself the responsibility to determine the “personal faith” of an individual.
I think the whole constitution issue should be opened de-novo from the position as it existed on September 11, 1948.   This is frankly the only solution.