0
IF I was writing this piece before Operation Epic Fury, then I would have taken a more conventional approach. However, the recent military attack by US and Israel on Iran, and targeted strikes on several OIC states have raised questions about the role of Pakistan as a state founded essentially on Muslim nationhood. Consequently, today one needs to examine the Pakistan Resolution of 1940 rather differently. The prime focus of this article is to examine the extent to which the vision in the said resolution, preceded by the 1930 address by Allama Iqbal at Allahabad, has been achieved in the 1973 Constitution. And whether the Constitution as a covenant amongst diverse federating units, can withstand the international challenges that confront us in this time of geopolitical upheavals.
The Lahore Resolution
There are two narratives pertaining to the All-India Muslim League’s resolution, which was passed in Lahore on March 23, 1940 (the Lahore or Pakistan Resolution). The popular and political version is that the Lahore Resolution was passed based on ideological and religious differences between the Hindus and the Muslims. It is contended that such differences were so deep that they could not be bridged merely through the goodwill of the parties concerned. However, the second narrative, which is more technical in nature, was the legal aspect. In order to grasp this narrative, the Lahore Resolution needs to be read in its proper context. It is the Quaid-i-Azam’s address on March 22, 1940, which forms the context and justification of the Lahore Resolution.
The Lahore Resolution emphasised the need for a Muslim political ideology to shield from the suppressive Hindu majority. The Muslims in this scenario could be considered as a minority. Living together under a democratic form of government, according to this view, amounted to a perpetual subjugation of the Muslim minority to the majoritarian Hindu rule. However, the Quaid-i-Azam’s view, without denying the religious character of the Lahore Resolution, was a different one. He considered the Muslims not merely a minority but a ‘nation’. In his address he said:
“The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realised, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Mussalmans, but to the British and Hindus also……the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into autonomous national states.”
In the language of international law, the Quaid viewed the Hindu-Muslim problem as a matter relating to the self-determination of the Muslims as in his view the Hindus and the Muslims of India were not only religious communities but also two nations in the modern sense of the word.
The Lahore Resolution demanded “that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.”
He said that the “Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood…. Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state.”
This is a precise demand for self-determination and not a cry for separatism based merely on religious antagonism. The great leader put it clearly: “We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people.”
principle of self-determination that was being increasingly espoused internationally since the start of the twentieth century became formally a part of international law when it was incorporated in the Charter of the United Nations in 1945. Article 1 (2) UN Charter states that it is one of the purposes of the UN to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”. The principle of self-determination is further mentioned in Articles 55, 73 and 76 of the United Nations Charter. In international law, self-determination is the right of “peoples” to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.
The Lahore Resolution crystalised in constitutional language the right of national self-determination of the Muslims of India by refusing to live in a united India under the numerical hegemony of the Hindu majority. The Lahore Resolution demanded “that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.”
The Allahabad address of 1930
The address was delivered by Allama Iqbal at the 25th session of the All India Muslim League on December 29, 1930 in Allahabad — a presidential address that puts an important context to the Pakistan Resolution that was adopted a decade later. What should matter to Pakistan’s present policymakers as they evaluate the crises of the Muslims in India, the situation in the Gulf countries, and most importantly in Iran, can be better understood by taking this address into account. By then, Iqbal had already achieved fame as a legal mind, an accomplished philosopher, and an ideologue who had a pragmatic and strategic approach towards all the issues of the Muslims that he referred to as the Ummah.
Iqbal explains in this address that “we (Muslims) are 70 million and far more homogeneous than any other people in India. Indeed, the Muslims of India are the only Indian people who can fitly be described as a nation in the modern sense of the word. The Hindus, though ahead of us in almost all respects, have yet to achieve the kind of homogeneity which is necessary for a nation, and which Islam has given you as a free gift… [which] in the case of Hindu India involves a complete overhauling of her social structure”.
Iqbal’s words are playing out today in India as we watch the BJP government shatter the idea of a secular and inclusive society. Instead of overhauling the social structure throughout the union territories, its bigoted rulers are bent on upper caste supremacy, making the social scenario more casteist and exclusionary even for the Hindus.
On the face of it, Iqbal’s thought of a Muslim nationhood was not bound by territories or regions. That we know well from his poetic expression yet he was not dismissive of the sanctity of boundaries either. As a lawyer, he was aware of the perils of pushing for a unitary caliphhood stretching across continents. His poetry may glorify the Ottomon Caliphate of Turkey, or the 600 year-reign of Muslims in Spain, but in his speech he refrained from insisting that Muslims across the globe form a single political government. The Lahore Resolution likewise offered a pragmatic two states solution within the subcontinent in areas with a Muslim majority.
It is his pragmatism on ground as a legal mind that appealed to modern day leaders like Ali Khamenei who leaned heavily on Iqbal Lahori’s vision and in the largest Shiite state, he remains the most revered figure both on the executive front and within the circle of their theological leaders. Last year, President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran especially stopped over in Lahore to visit Iqbal’s tomb. Their consistent anti-USA and Israel stance is without doubt fueled by the religious ethos of Hazrat Ali and the spirit of Karbala. However, the Iranians also draw inspiration from Iqbal ‘Lahori’ as they fondly call him. It is common knowledge, and the conclusion of several studies on Iqbal’s life and works that the faith he followed inspired him.
Iqbal claimed in the Allahabad speech that “I have given the best part of my life to a careful study of Islam, its law and polity; its history and its literature”. He concluded that Muslim nationhood relies upon the values, social norms, and community ideals drawn from the faith that will always serve as a common bond.
Almost 90 years later, from an unexpected quarter came a similar view in the form of an advice. President Putin’s team searched for what could be suggested as a common historic or cultural feature to unite the Middle East, for his 2019 address to these countries in Turkey. In the presence of the Iranian and Turkish heads of state, President Putin surprised the Muslim audience when he quoted the verse 103 from Quran’s chapter Aal-e-Imran — “And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.”
He teasingly asked the delegates as to why the Gulf countries did not build an alliance relying on the common values of the scripture that they believe in. Obviously no one is suggesting forming a grand Muslim state of the Middle East, but certainly a framework of mutual cooperation and defence support can be built to benefit as well as protect each one of these countries. Or perhaps an effort may be made to make OIC a more effective regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. But the hint from the Russian side was clear — evolve a responsible narrative rooted in your faith to counter extremist religious positions that are beginning to dominate foreign policies of certain international and regional powers.
The Delhi Resolution of 1946
It will not be amiss to mention here another resolution passed on April 9, 1946 by the All-India Muslim League’s Legislators Convention held in Delhi (the Delhi Resolution) under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. In the Delhi Resolution, the Lahore Resolution was amended and the name of Pakistan was specifically stated in this charter. Additionally, ‘independent states’ as mentioned in the Lahore Resolution was replaced with a ‘sovereign independent state’ in the Delhi Resolution. The reference to ‘constituent units (which) should be autonomous and sovereign’ in the Lahore Resolution was also omitted.
The Delhi Resolution declares “That the zones comprising Bengal and Assam in the north-east and the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan in the north-west of India, namely Pakistan zones, where the Muslims are in a dominant majority, be constituted into a sovereign independent state and that an unequivocal undertaking be given to implement the establishment of Pakistan without delay.”
The common factor in both the Lahore Resolution and the Delhi Resolution is the demand of self-determination for the Muslims of India where they can establish a homeland, and they can “develop to the fullest [their] spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political life, in a way that [they] think best and in consonance with [their] own ideals and according to the genius of [their] people”.
The 1973 Constitution
Constitution making in Pakistan has been an arduous task. After the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the constitution that was adopted for the new state was the Government of India Act 1935. The first national constitution took some time to frame and it was promulgated and enforced in 1956. Unfortunately, this constitution could not work for long as it was abrogated in 1958 with the declaration of martial law. The next constitution that was framed was in 1962. It was presidential in form and was also abrogated in 1969. The third constitution was the Interim Constitution enforced in 1972. We are now working with the Constitution that was enforced in 1973. This Constitution was strictly parliamentary in nature. However, major amendments like the 8th constitutional amendment 1985, 17th constitutional amendment 2002 and 18th constitutional amendment 2010 changed the original form of the Constitution significantly. Recently, the 26th constitutional amendment in 2024, followed by the 27th constitutional amendment in 2025 have had a far-reaching impact on the legal process and structure.
It is well-known that there are competing narratives that are espoused regarding the objective that was behind the struggle for a separate state for the Muslims of India. While one party asserts that Pakistan was imagined purely as a theocratic state pointing to slogans such as ‘Pakistan ka matlab kya / La Ilaha il Allah’ that was raised by the populace in the processions and public meetings during the Pakistan movement, the other party uncompromisingly espouses the establishment of a secular polity in Pakistan, and points to the presidential speech by the Quaid-i-Azam in the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947. However, it appears that the majority of the population will support a modern Islamic democracy that is neither purely secular nor purely theocratic. In such a state, the government rather than an enforcer of the Islamic norms shall function as an enabler of Islamic values. In this kind of a modern state, there will be freedom of religion and the practice of religion will remain grounded in the covenant between the individual believer and God.
The country’s founding vision finds full articulation in this social contract (i.e. the 1973 Constitution). Article 2 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 declares that the religion of the state shall be Islam. In order to provide the way to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Council of Islamic Ideology and the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan are effective platforms.
Although it was viewed as a controversial step when both these bodies were brought in the main text of the Constitution by a dictator, but some believe that their presence serves as a useful argument against extremist elements. These exist as forums that will give an institutionalised evaluation that determines which one of the thousands of laws in Pakistan violates the injunctions of Islam.
The Constitution further ensures fundamental rights, inter alia, democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam, and enables Muslims to exercise their own free will to either follow their personal covenant with God or to act differently; the state would not interfere. As far as minorities are concerned, Pakistan went on to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and several other human rights treaties. Though implementation has several gaps as of now yet the aforesaid legal commitments reflect the vision of Iqbal and Jinnah for a modern, moderate and tolerant Islamic state. It is neither a theocracy nor purely secular, but a balance between the two. It provides guidance for collective living and safeguards for individual liberty.
It needs to be admitted that the evolution of the Constitution of Pakistan was a journey marked by deviations and disruptions. Instead of being products of parliamentary debate, major constitutional amendments were framed and enforced through authoritarian regimes. In all democratic countries edicts derive their legitimacy and enforcement through consultative processes by the legitimate representatives of the citizens. The popular will is expressed through popular elections and through legislative assemblies. In Islamic political thought, the consensus generated from consultation or Shura has a covenantal status amongst those who participate in the said process. Decisions in disregard of the said principle remain controversial. Karbala is a classic case study of resistance when the covenantal consultations were overridden by an Individual’s arbitrary and unpopular decision; the raison d’etre being the supremacy of the collective will over the will of one person, no matter how wise or powerful that individual may be.
The new world order
The decade of 1940s saw the emergence of a new world order in which the United Nations was formed in 1945, and Pakistan was established two years later. Then Pakistan could afford to continue experimentation with its careless constitution making as it was in the United States’ camp. The only threat was from the Indian side, which was mostly hedged.
Today our government is interfacing with the Middle East, and two hostile neighbours. The world’s power centres are not necessarily backing us up fully so we have to juggle neutrality in a full blown war in the Middle East. The prevailing narratives are far more misleading and ruthless, such as the religious extremism of evangelical Christians, the promised land of the Jews, and the Akhand Bharat fantasy of the BJP — all divisive slogans to sustain conflict and control. Our representatives need to do serious internal consultations or Shura sessions with all political forces in order to have proper authorisation to take positions.
The Constitution being a social contract or covenant should be performed by those tasked to implement it in the machinery of the government. If its deadlines are missed, if it is made off-balanced, if there is a trend of institutional disregard rather than individual violations then the link between the federation and its subjects begins to weaken dangerously. When electoral systems are compromised and mandates are considered to be stolen, the government’s legitimacy to participate in the activities and alliances in the new world order that will now shape the world, is reduced.
The writer is ex-federal law minister & advocate Supreme Court.
