FRAUDS! That is what we are. We are large frogs in small ponds, or small frogs in large ponds. This column continues on the subject of the Objectives Resolution, debated and approved by our elected Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949. Read on.

Additional excerpts from the speech made that day by our first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan:

"The greatest proof of the tolerance of Muslim peoples lies in the fact that there is no Muslim country where strong minorities do not exist, and where they have not been able to preserve their religion and culture. Most of all, in this subcontinent of India, where the Muslims wielded unlimited authority, the rights of non-Muslims were cherished and protected... It is this tolerance which is envisaged by Islam, wherein a minority does not live on sufferance, but is respected and given every opportunity to develop its own thought and culture, so that it may contribute to the greater glory of the entire nation....

"In our desire to build up an Islamic society we have not ignored the rights of the non-Muslims. Indeed, it would have been un-Islamic to do so and we would have been guilty of transgressing the dictates of our religion if we had tried to impinge upon the freedom of the minorities. In no way will they be hindered from professing or protecting their religion or developing their cultures....

"Mr President, it has become fashionable to guarantee certain fundamental rights, but I assure you that it is not our intention to give these rights with one hand and take them away with the other. I have said enough to show that we want to build up a truly liberal government where the greatest amount of freedom will be given to all its members. Everyone will be equal before the law, but this does not mean that his personal law will not be protected. We believe in the equality of status and justice."

During the debate, our foreign minister, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, spoke up:

"The point to stress in this connection is that while the Resolution requires that under the Pakistan constitution Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam, it lays no such compulsion, burden or obligation upon non-Muslims. In their view the spheres of politics and religion are distinct and apart, and can remain so. The constitution shall make adequate provision for them in the very words of the Resolution: "freely to profess and practice their religion and develop their cultures." Their legitimate interests shall be safeguarded and they shall in common with all the citizens of Pakistan be guaranteed all fundamental human 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.' They will also, along with other citizens of Pakistan, be entitled to enjoy the benefits of a constitution 'wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed.' What more could any minority or any section of the people of Pakistan desire?

"There shall be no compulsion in matters of faith." An alternative rendering can also be: 'There can be no compulsion in matters of faith', inasmuch as faith is a matter of conscience, and conscience cannot be compelled; it also signifies there need be no compulsion in matters of faith. 'Guidance has been made manifest from error; let him therefore who wills believe and let him who wills deny.'

"There are other injunctions contained in the Quran from which the same conclusion may be drawn, but I shall go on to mention one incident from the life of the Holy Prophet as illustrating the actual practice of tolerance in these matters. A Christian deputation was waiting on the Holy Prophet and had carried on exchange of views with him for some days. One day they intimated that they would have to absent themselves the next day. The Prophet enquired the reason for this and they explained that the following day was their sabbath and that they must withdraw some distance from Madina to perform their worship in their own fashion.

"The Prophet told them that there was no need for them to withdraw from Madina for that purpose. They were welcome to perform their worship in his mosque. I might explain that the Prophet used to carry on all his public activities in the mosque. In that simple structure he received emissaries, he received deputations, he instructed his followers, he led the services and prayers, and all his public activities were performed there. It is recorded that the following day when the time came, the Christians took out their crosses and images and placing them in front of them in the Prophet's mosque performed their worship in their own fashion."

Dr Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, that renowned scholar elected from East Bengal, had this to add:

"If anybody were to say that religious prejudice should not be permitted to affect our relationship with humanity, I would certainly say 'yes.' But, then, I should submit that the Resolution does lay down that so far as relations with non-Muslims are concerned, they will be based upon the utmost tolerance, not only on tolerance but also on the appreciation of their culture and on all that liberty and fraternity imply."

And from Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Osmani, also elected from East Bengal, a great scholar of religion, came these wise words:

"Here it should be remembered that an Islamic state does not mean the 'Government of the Ordained Priests'. How could Islam countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words: 'Ittakhazoo ahbarahum wa ruhbanahum arbabam min doonil-lah.' (The Quran, X, Ta'uba 5) 'They (the Jews and the Christians) took their priest and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation to God'."

To end, a passage from a judgment written by Chief Justice Hamoodur Rahman in the matter of the State versus Zia-ur-Rahman and Others (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 49):

"Therefore, in my view, however solemn or sacrosanct a document, if it is not incorporated in the Constitution or does not form a part thereof it cannot control the Constitution. At any rate, the courts created under the Constitution will not have the power to declare any provision of the Constitution itself as being in violation of such a document.

"If in fact that document contains the expression of the will of the vast majority of the people, then the remedy for correcting such a violation will lie with the people and not with the judiciary. It follows from this that under our own system too the Objectives Resolution of 1949, even though it is a document which has been generally accepted and has never been repealed of renounced, will not have the same status or authority as the Constitution itself until it is incorporated within it or made part of it.

"If it appears only as a preamble to the Constitution, then it will serve the same purpose as any other preamble serves, namely, that in the case of any doubt as to the intent of the law-maker, it may be looked at to ascertain the true intent, but it cannot control the substantive provisions thereof."

And so, Zia-ul-Haq by his Presidential Order No 14 of 1985 added Article 2A to the 1973 Constitution making the Objectives Resolution a substantive part of that Constitution. However, the Objectives Resolution decreed that: "Whereas adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures..." Zia's reproduction deliberately deleted the word 'freely" from this proclamation. No one claims credit for committing this mischief.

It is now up to General Pervez Musharraf to undo this wilful damage. His new-found flip-flop minister for religious affairs, Dr Mahmud Ahmad Ghazi, can indeed help him and for support he can depend on our constitutional wizard, Jadoogar Sharifuddin Pirzada, who claims he had no hand in the commitment of the original sin.