Many Pakistanis, especially the youth in colleges and universities, while celebrating Independence Day every year, express bafflement as to how a state purportedly created in the name of ‘Islam’ is juxtaposed with the term ‘Republic.’ They wonder how a Parliament, where majority is not comprised of theologians, working under the Westminster model, retains, amends and enacts mainly Anglo-Saxon laws and yet claims that Shariah is supreme. In Europe, the United States and elsewhere, the term ‘republic’ connotes a State that precludes monarch and clergy. In our context, the predominant view, though totally misconceived, is that divorced from religion, politics is “changezee” (chaos, anarchy and disorder).
جلالِ بادشاہی ہو کہ جمہوری تماشا ہو
جدا ہو دیں سیاست سے تو رہ جاتی ہے چنگیزی
What poet Dr. Muhammad Iqbal emphasizes in the couplet, Jallah badshahi ho ya jamhori tamasha ho; Juda hon deen siyasat se, to reh jati hai changezee, is that ethics contained in the Quran should be a part and parcel of governance. The majority misconstrue deen as conventional mazhab (religion). The clergy, by reading second stanza in isolation, interprets and insists that politics should only be in the name of their brand of conventional (orthodox) religion. They and many others conveniently ignore the first stanza of the couplet. Both stanzas, read together, unambiguously convey that whether it is monarchy or democracy, governance sans the ethical framework of deen is “changezee.”
With conventional mazhab comes Shariah, that is a contentious issue since the adoption of the Objectives Resolution of 1949. In a fragmented society marred by sectarian hatred (not merely genuine differences over interpretation of Islamic laws), it has becomes a permanent source of conflicts with claims and counter claims on how to run the state.
According to the critics of the Objectives Resolution, it was a departure from the ideals of Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, of equality for all citizens and his principles of fair governance. Using it as a ploy, they say that all governments, both military and civilians, managed to convert Pakistan into an exploitative state where ultimately the Shariat Court held land reforms against Islam.
Ziauddin Sardar, who was born in Lahore and left Pakistan in 1960 at the age of nine, now author of not less than fifty books with worldwide acclaim, as a public intellectual specialising in Muslim thought) says that “if you equate Islam with state, then religion becomes a reason of the state and that state becomes the power of religion. Basically, you produce a totalitarian system.” He elaborates that the very idea that “Islam is equal to state is a totalitarian equation. We don’t have to go very far; we just have to see recent history. Wherever Islam has been equated with state, we have produced totalitarian systems, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, you name it.” Of course, Saudi Arabia is now drifting away from influence of clergy, but not monarchy.
According to the critics of the Objectives Resolution, it was a departure from the ideals of Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, of equality for all citizens and his principles of fair governance. Using it as a ploy, they say that all governments, both military and civilians, managed to convert Pakistan into an exploitative state where ultimately the Shariat Court held land reforms against Islam. According to them, Quaid-e-Azam did not want to make Pakistan a theocratic but certainly an egalitarian state.
The Objectives Resolution, passed by the first Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949 under the leadership of Liaquat Ali Khan, is undoubtedly one of the most important documents in the constitutional history of Pakistan—it served as preamble for the Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973 and eventually became part of the 1973 Constitution when the Eighth Amendment was passed in 1985. Its proponents claim that it confirms the true genesis of Pakistan by reiterating, “Sovereignty of the entire Universe belongs to Allah alone and authority should be delegated to the State through its people under the rules set by Allah.” Therefore, it has become a blend of Islam and Western democracy.
Liaquat Ali Khan explained the context of the resolution in his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949 claiming it to be “the most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the achievement of independence.” He said that we as Muslims 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 elected persons would exercise the authority, which is the essence of democracy and it eliminates the dangers of theocracy. The events that followed proved him wrong as clergy started asserting its own authority instead of that of Allah by saying “religion is what we interpret.”
The militants and terrorists derive their ideological strength from the notion that real authority rests with Allah and they are waging jihad to make Pakistan a true Islamic polity.
The logical outcomes of the Objectives Resolution were: the movement against Ahmadis, the clergy’s campaign against Ayub Khan’s regime in the name of Islam, the support of religious parties and right wing to military crackdown in East Pakistan culminating into dismemberment of the country and ultimately, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s compromises with the religious leaders.
The matter did not end there. It paved the way for an 11-year dictatorial and nightmarish rule, from 1977 to 1988, of General Zia-ul-Haq. Zia’s legacy was reflected in the formative political years of Mian Nawaz Sharif, three time elected Prime Minster of Pakistan. The military dictator late General Pervez Musharraf who deposed Nawaz Sharif on October 12, 1999, all others who followed him failed to undo Zia’s legacy—unfortunately since 1977 the religious bigotry is haunting us. The militants and terrorists derive their ideological strength from the notion that real authority rests with Allah and they are waging jihad to make Pakistan a true Islamic polity.
The Objectives Resolution, being part of our Constitution, though emphasizes existence of a Muslim State based on the principles of justice and equity for all, yet it contradicts the concept of a secular State free of any religious obligations. The Shariah as body of laws cannot be free of sectarian biases, thus, one cannot reconcile the two conflicting ideas.
For example, in Indonesia, the debate whether you can have an Islamic state was a long drawn one with much depth, and they finally reached the conclusion that Islam and politics are linked, not through the state but through a civic society. It means that if you are a socially-conscious Muslim, you ought to bring your own moral and ethical outlook, express it openly in a civic context, debate and discuss it. Obviously, this has nothing to do with declaring Islam as a state religion with legal obligations. The idea of Islamic state has to be construed innovatively to create a civic society and not a state religion through constitutional command as done by us through Objectives Resolution.
Dr. Iqbal Hussain Qureshi, known as. I.H. Qureshi, the chief author of the Objectives Resolution, a well-known academic historian admitted, “The Resolution was quickly prepared and passed ‘in a snap’ at a meeting of the Muslim League Party.” At the time of presentation of Objectives Resolution, Pakistan was not Islamic Republic. Its structure was republican fully in line with the Indian Independence Act of 1947. After becoming an Islamic Republic, we have miserably failed to reconcile these two conflicting objectives. The concept of an Islamic state logically calls for decision-making in the hands of “pious ones,” so certified by the clergy!
We must learn from Bangladesh. One of the unique features of the Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh is that it pledges to conserve secularism (Article 12) while also declaring Islam as its state religion (Article 2A). A five-member bench of Supreme Court of Bangladesh in 2023 dismissed an appeal by the country’s largest Islamist party, the Jamaat-e-Islami, seeking to overturn a 2013 ruling that barred it from participating in elections for violating the constitutional provision of secularism, but not from political activities. The historic context of this decision vis-à-vis constitutional and political evolution of Bangladesh is available in an article by Dr. Arshi Saleem Hashmi.
The final judgement of the highest court of Bangladesh, while reconfirming State as secular pluralistic constitutional democracy, barred use of religion in politics. The recent students’ uprising in Bangladesh is mass based and not resurgence of religion as wrongly portrayed by section of Indian media. The dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 exploded the myth that the “real” purpose behind creation of Pakistan was establishment of an Islamic State. The two-nation theory, based on the foundation of religious divide of Hindus and Muslims, received an irrecoverable setback when the Bengalis were maltreated by the ruling elite of West Pakistan that ultimately led to the division of the State, proving that socio-economic factors, and not religion, play the decisive role in politics.
With substantial evidence, Dr. Ajeet has established that Quaid remained a secularist and nationalist up to the last moment of his life. Thus, attempts to make Pakistan an ‘Islamic Republic’ are a great betrayal.
The Late Dr. Ajeet Jawed in Secular and Nationalist Jinnah has brilliantly documented that Quaid-i-Azam wanted a secular Pakistan. Throughout his political career, he struggled against both Hindu and Muslim extremists. After independence, the feudal class, with the help of its cronies — the bureaucrats, clergymen and men in khaki—managed to hijack the new state and converted it into Islamic Republic - mere nomenclature whereas the system remains Anglo-Saxon. The Holy Quran does not permit a class stratified society and concentration of wealth—its main emphasis is on the empowerment of the underprivileged.
Even in the very beginning, the vested interest tried to tamper with the famous speech of the Quaid of August 11, 1947, but failed to do so. Dr. Ajeet revealed in her book (available in Urdu as well): “It was allowed to be published in full only after Dawn's editor, Altaf Hussain, threatened those who were trying to tamper with it to go to Jinnah himself if the press advice was not withdrawn.”
For building a secular Pakistan, Dr. Ajeet writes, Quaid sought the help of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, because, as he said in his letter to Badshah Khan, he was “surrounded by thieves and scoundrels” through whom he could do nothing. With substantial evidence, Dr. Ajeet has established that Quaid remained a secularist and nationalist up to the last moment of his life. Thus, attempts to make Pakistan an ‘Islamic Republic’ are a great betrayal.
The late I. A. Rehman, an outstanding journalist and public intellectual, summed up the entire debate aptly in his article, Jinnah’s new Pakistan is possible, “Those who wish to save or reconstruct Jinnah’s Pakistan will do well to avoid following the Quaid’s actions that were determined by time and circumstance… in order to progress Pakistan must continue to be defined by a firm commitment to constitutionalism and the model of a welfare state, sovereignty of the people, and equal rights for women and members of minority communities… it is necessary to retain Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan, subject, of course, to changes in details demanded by contemporary realities….all those interested in building this Pakistan must realise that they will not be successful without going beyond the August 11 speech and that state-building cannot be done by think tanks alone.”