Objectives Resolution termed deviation from Quaid-i-Azam’s vision

Published March 13, 2019
Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed.—White Star
Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed.—White Star

KARACHI: “The Objectives Resolution, adopted by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on March 12, 1949, was a deviation from the Quaid-i-Azam’s perception of Pakistan,” said Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed, one of the leading scholars of Pakistan Studies, during his talk at the University of Karachi’s department of history on Tuesday.

The resolution over the years stirred much debate on its rationale and utility and even after 70 years it is important to reassess this historic document with objectivity, he added.

Pakistan, Dr Jaffar reminded, did not have a constitution in 1947 as the Government of India Act of 1935 served as the interim constitution here. Meanwhile, India was quick in making its own constitution after independence which led to pressure on the government from the Pakistani press for not being able to do the same.

“It was in February of 1949 that the Constituent Assembly met and the draft of the resolution was presented after which Shabbir Ahmed Usmani sent it to jail to Maulana Maududi there who was doing time for his fatwa on jihad in Kashmir. It was after Maududi had made amendments to the text of the Objectives Resolution that it was passed by the Constituent Assembly,” he said, adding that the resolution had made Pakistan a theocracy.

“This resolution talks about democracy, it talks about federations, it talks about provincial autonomy and it also talks about minorities. Then what is the objection?,” the scholar asked before saying that finding out required careful reading of the constitutional documents.

“You will not find the word ‘republic’ in there,” he said. “It means that the drafters were trying to avoid the sovereignty of the state to the people.” And they drafted that the sovereignty over the state belongs to God.

“So what then is the role of the parliament?” he asked. “For example, if the parliament is discussing a bill which has been proposed, who will decide the will of God or His intention? Therefore the parliament was given a devolved authority as for all laws it needs to be seen whether they fulfil the spirit of the Quran and Sunnah,” he explained.

“In his famous August 11, 1947 speech, the Quaid-i-Azam named the Constituent Assembly as having sovereignty. But after what happened Quaid’s philosophy was compromised. The bureaucracy here wanted to take control, too. And then a civil-military nexus emerged taking shelter in the slogan of Islam,” he said.

“In 1956, when the first Constitution was finally made, the Objectives Resolution was made a preamble. In the 1962 and the 1973 Constitutions, too, as the preamble it was put in the beginning of the Constitution. Then in 1985 there was the eighth amendment drafted and enforced by the technocratic-military government of General Zia to change Pakistan’s system of governance to a semi-presidential system while removing martial law. The eighth amendment made Islam and Article 2 and then Article 2(A) a part of the Constitution and thus that preamble became an operative part of the Constitution. It was all being done in the name of Islam,” said Dr Jaffar.

The eighth amendment also changed things for minorities in Pakistan. “On the surface everything seemed fine but one word, ‘freely’, mentioned in the Quaid’s Aug 11 speech where he had talked about minorities being allowed to freely practice their religion was missing,” he said.

“For 25 years no one noticed. Then in 2010 it was noticed at the time of the 18th Amendment. The word could not have been dropped accidentally because you need an amendment in the Constitution even if you need to put in an extra comma. And here neither the assemblies nor the Senate knew anything about it,” he said.

“It was a clear departure from the neutrality the Quaid wanted in Pakistan. But it was said that when making his speech the Quaid at the time was only saying that to pacify the feelings of the minorities here. Such kind of talk only belittles his speech and what he was trying to say,” he said.

“Now, although Article 2(A) is still there, the word ‘freely’ has been added again through the 18th Amendment,” he concluded.

Published in Dawn, March 13th, 2019

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.