The Objective Resolution 1949: Critically Analysed Causes and Consequences

The first step towards the framing of Constitution was taken by Constituent Assembly in March 1949 when it passed a Resolution on the “Aims and Objectives of the Constitution”, popularly known as the Objective Resolution. It laid the foundation of the Constitution and indicated the broad outlines of its structure. It was described as the most important occasion in the life of Pakistan. The Resolution was moved by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and the leading members of its cabinet on March 7, 1940 in the Assembly. Out of 75 members of the assembly, 21 voted for it opposition participated in debate but All debates and the amendments proposed by minority members were rejected.

Ultimately, On March 12, 1949, Resolution moved by Liaquat Ali Khan, was adopted by the Constituent Assembly.

The text of the Resolution as passed by Constituent Assembly was:

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 to [freely] 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 includ-ing 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.

Liaquat Ali Khan explained the context of the resolution in his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949. He termed the passage of the Objectives Resolution as “the most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence.’. He said that we as Muslim believed that authority vested in Allah Almighty and it should be exercised in accordance with the standards laid down in Islam. He added that this preamble had made it clear that the authority would be exercised by the chosen persons; which is the essence of democracy and it eliminates the dangers of theocracy. It emphasized on the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice and it says that these should be part of future constitution.

But when it was debated in the session of the Constituent Assembly, it was opposed and criticized by minorities’ leaders. A non Muslim, Prem Hari proposed that the motion should be first circulated for evoking public opinion and should then be discussed in the house on April 30, 1949. He was supported by Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya, who proposed some amendments in the resolution. To him, since the committee of Fundamental Rights had finalized their report, there was no need for this resolution to recommend these rights. He added that the Objectives Resolution was amalgamation of religion and politics; hence it would create ambiguities with relation to its application in constitutional framework. He wanted time to study and understand the Objectives Resolution.

Bhupendra Kumar Datta, a member of PNC from East Pakistan, proposed that the first paragraph beginning with the words “Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone…” and ending with the words “limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust…” of the Resolution must be omitted. He pointed out that ‘the relations between a state and its citizens have been… the subjects of politics’ and ‘the relations between man and God come within the sphere of religion’. ‘Politics comes within the sphere of reason, while religion within that of faith. If religion and politics are intermingled then there is a risk of subjecting religion to criticism, which will rightly be presented as sacrilegious; and it would also cripple reason and curb criticism as far as the state policies are concerned..Datta also warned that this resolution was prone to be misused by a political adventurer who might find a justification for his ambitions in the clause that referred to the delegation of the Almighty’s authority to the state through its people. He could declare himself as Ruler of Pakistan appointed by his Maker’.He also pointed out another potentially dangerous implication of The Role of Opposition in Constitution-Making 149 the Resolution in that ‘the limits’ prescribed by the Almighty would remain ‘subject to interpretations and… liable to variations, liberal or rigid, from time to time by different authorities and specialists. Taking part in the debate on the same paragraph,

Chandra Chattopadyaya, a member of PNC from East Pakistan, expressed the same fears that: This part of the Resolution ought to be deleted. All powers rest with the people and they exercise their power through the agency of the state. The state is merely their spokesman. The Resolution makes the state the sole authority received from God Almighty through the instrumentality of people. People have no power or authority. They are merely post-boxes according to this Resolution. The State will exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Him. What are those limits, who will interpret them? In case of difference who will interpret? One day a Louis XIV may come and say, “I am the state, appointed by the Almighty” and thus paving the way for the advent of Divine Right of Kings afresh. Instead of the state being the voice of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion.

Bhupendra Kumar Datta proposed that in the paragraph ‘wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed’, the words ‘as enunciated by Islam’ should be omitted. He explained that this clause has condemned minorities ‘for ever to an inferior status and prevented.

Prem Hari Barma, a member of the PNC from East Pakistan, also supported the above amendment by arguing that it would ‘cover a much wider range of the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice. But with the retention of these words, the paragraph would cover only those principles of democracy, freedom, tolerance, equality and social justice which have been enunciated by Islam with the result that many of the universally accepted principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice would be left out’.

He proposed that if those words were retained, then after the words ‘enunciated by Islam’, the words ‘and other religions’ be inserted. He proposed that in addition to the ‘principles enunciated by Islam’, the principles enunciated by other religions should also be fully observed because ‘there were a considerable number of non-Muslims in the state of Pakistan; it would certainly be a fatal policy to base the constitution on the principles of Islam only and thereby create misconception and misapprehension in the minds of the people of other religions’.

Prem Har Barma moved two amendments in the fifth paragraph ‘wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teaching and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah’. He proposed that for the words ‘Muslims shall’, the words ‘Muslims and non-Muslims shall equally’ be substituted ‘and for the words ‘Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah’, the words ‘their respective religions’ be substituted.

He argued that these amendments will not minimize the importance of teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah and the non-Muslims will also be able to order their lives in accord with the teachings and requirements of their respective religions.

Chandra Chattopadyaya, the leader of the PNC, referring to the Quaid-i-Azam’s declaration made in the Assembly on August 11, 1947, said that it was a clear indication that Pakistan would be based on ‘eternal principles of equality and democracy’.

Jinnah’s Speech August 11, 1947

It is also important to review the vision of the founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah about the nature of state of Pakistan. After independence, in his presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, he assured the people of Pakistan that:

You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of 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...we are starting in the days when 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.... 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. The founder of the state provided the guiding principle in the framing of the Constitution.

So, the thrust of the Objectives Resolution contradicts the vision of Jinnah as mentioned above. The vision of Jinnah about Pakistan was very clear and straight forward in which state was not mingled with religion.

Kumar Datta opposed the Resolution by saying that ‘if this resolution came in life of Jinnah it would not have come in its present form. Let us not do anything which lead our generation to blind destiny.

Mian Muhammad Iftikharuddin was the only Muslim member in the house who opposed the resolution. To him the resolution was vague and many words used in it do not mean anything. He further suggested that such a resolution should not only be the product of Muslim League members sitting in the assembly alone. Rather it was supposed to be the voice of seventy million people of Pakistan.

In response to all above arguments Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the president of JUI, referred to a letter of Quaid-i-Azam to Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif, in November 1945, in which he assured him that ‘it is needless to emphasize that the Constituent Assembly which would be predominantly Muslim in its composition would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not inconsistent with the Shariat laws and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by un-Islamic laws’

The Objectives Resolution was also strongly supported by Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Sardar Abdurrab Nishter, Noor Ahmad, Begam Shaista, Muhammad Hussain and others. In order to counter the allegations they argued that Islam governs not only our relations with God but also the activities of the believers in other spheres of life as Islam is complete code of life.

After a great debate finally the resolution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949. All the amendments proposed by the non-Muslim opposition members were put to the vote of the Constituent Assembly. The House rejected these amendments by twenty-one to ten votes. All the PNC(Pakistan National Congress) members voted for the amendments. All Muslim-League leaders (except Mian Iftikharuddin) voted against the amendments.

Liaquat Ali Khan assured the minorities that they will get all the fundamental rights in Pakistan once the constitution based on the Objectives Resolution will be enforced.

However, this resolution created a division on the communal lines as the Muslim members except for Mian Iftikharuddin voted in favor of it and the non-Muslims opposed it. It created a suspicion in the mind of minorities against majority. Since, the Resolution has yet not been implemented in Pakistan in the true spirit, the doubts in the minds of the minorities still exists.

After the adoption of Resolution, Hamid Khan remarks that it was ‘unfortunate that there was a division on the Resolution along communal lines. The Resolution had sown the seeds of suspicion, alienation and distrust among the minorities. He further asserts that it might have been ‘more prudent to accept some of the amendments proposed by the members representing the minorities in order to reach an understanding with them so that the Resolution could have been passed by consensus. Some of the proposed amendments were moderate and might have been adopted in the larger national interest’.

The Objectives Resolution was included in the Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973 as a preamble of the document but President Zia-ul-Haq made it integral part of the Constitution of 1973 through the Article 2(A) in the Eighth Amendment in 1985 through Presidential Order, which is enforceable in a court of law. It has been included as an annexure, so that if the constitution is abrogated, the Objectives Resolution is not automatically suspended, diluted, or abrogated. The word ‘freely’ was deleted from the Resolution, which was meant for the minorities.

The government’s policy of uniting people on the name of Islam failed because of its failure to comprehend the plural sensitivities of Pakistani society and to address the problems of the people for whom they had sacrificed and achieved a separate state. This created alienation among certain people and provinces of Pakistan which ultimately lead to the disintegration of Pakistan and separation of East Pakistan in 1971. The event proved that ideology alone cannot keep the people united. Justice and fair opportunity is a must to keep a plural society together and save it from disintegration.

To sum up, today Pakistan should revert back to the vision and aspirations of its founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted a Islamic welfare state where all people live in peace and harmony and where minorities, according to him, ‘will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed’.