The Objective Resolution of The Objective Resolution of Pakistan
The Objective Resolution of 1949 is one of the most significant documents in Pakistan’s constitutional history. It laid the foundation for the nation’s future legal and political structure by emphasizing the sovereignty of Allah and the supremacy of Islamic principles.
However, this resolution, which was introduced by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, faced significant opposition from minority groups within the Constituent Assembly. Their concerns centered around the implications of the resolution for religious freedom, equal citizenship, and the secular nature of the state.
This essay explores how minorities in Pakistan challenged the Objective Resolution and the broader implications of their opposition.
The Context of The Objective Resolution of Pakistan
The Objective Resolution was introduced on March 7, 1949, in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. It declared that sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty, and the authority delegated to the State of Pakistan, through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him, is a sacred trust. The resolution further stated that Muslims would be enabled to order their lives according to the teachings of Islam, and the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice as enunciated by Islam would be fully observed.
While the resolution was meant to define the guiding principles for the future constitution of Pakistan, it immediately raised concerns among minority communities. Leaders from Hindu, Christian, and Sikh communities were apprehensive that the resolution’s emphasis on Islam would undermine their status as equal citizens and jeopardize their religious freedoms (Choudhury, 1955).
Minority Concerns and Opposition of the Objective Resolution Pakistan
The primary concern of the minority representatives was the resolution’s potential to institutionalize discrimination. The minorities argued that the resolution, by prioritizing Islam, could marginalize non-Muslims in the legal and social fabric of the country. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyay, a Hindu member of the Constituent Assembly, vehemently opposed the resolution. He argued that the resolution was divisive and would lead to the creation of a theocratic state, which was contrary to the promises made to minorities during the creation of Pakistan. He famously remarked,
“What is there to show that we are a free people, that we are citizens of a free state, or that the state belongs to all the citizens irrespective of caste, creed, or religion?” .
(Chattopadhyay, 1949)
Another prominent minority leader, Bhupendra Kumar Datta, echoed these concerns. He argued that the resolution’s emphasis on Islam as the foundation of the state would alienate non-Muslims. Datta stated,
“If Pakistan is to be a Muslim state where the tenets of Islam will be the guiding force, what will be the position of the non-Muslims? We do not want Pakistan to be an Islamic state; we want it to be a democratic state, where all citizens will enjoy equal rights and privileges” .
(Datta, 1949)
His concerns highlighted the fear that the resolution would pave the way for a state where non-Muslims would be treated as second-class citizens.
S. P. Singha, representing the Christian community, also voiced his objections, emphasizing the need for equality and religious freedom. He warned that the resolution’s focus on Islam would create a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims, stating,
“Pakistan should not become a religious state, but a democratic one, where people of all faiths can live in harmony and with equal rights”.
(Singha, 1949)
Jogendra Nath Mandal, another Hindu leader and a key figure in Pakistan’s early politics, expressed his deep concerns about the potential implications of the Objective Resolution. He stated,
(Mandal, 1949)“I belong to the Scheduled Castes, who have been oppressed and downtrodden for centuries. We have been struggling for our rights, and today, I fear that this resolution will push us back into the darkness of oppression. We want a Pakistan where all people, regardless of their religion or caste, can live with dignity and freedom”.
Mandal’s statement underscored the fears of minority communities that the resolution would lead to a regression in the hard-won rights and freedoms they had begun to enjoy.
Chandra Kumar Bhattacharya, another minority representative, was also critical of the resolution. He expressed his skepticism about the assurances provided by the majority, stating,
“The promises of equality and protection are hollow unless they are enshrined in the constitution with clear and unambiguous language. This resolution, in its current form, leaves too much room for interpretation, and that interpretation will inevitably be to the detriment of minorities”
(Bhattacharya, 1949).
The Debate in the Constituent Assembly on the Objective Resolution Pakistan
The debate over the Objective Resolution in the Constituent Assembly was intense and highlighted the deep divisions between the majority Muslim representatives and the minority members. The Muslim members, including Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, argued that the resolution was a reflection of the Islamic identity of Pakistan and was in line with the aspirations of the Muslim majority. Liaquat Ali Khan assured the minorities by stating, “The state shall endeavor to secure for all citizens irrespective of their religion, race, caste, or creed, fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, worship, and association” (Khan, 1949).
However, the minority members remained unconvinced. They pointed out that the resolution’s vague language and lack of explicit protections for non-Muslims made it difficult to trust the assurances given by the majority. Despite the guarantees offered by Liaquat Ali Khan, minority leaders like Prem Hari Barma continued to challenge the resolution, arguing that it would institutionalize religious discrimination and undermine the principle of equality for all citizens. Barma stated, “This resolution places a particular religion on a pedestal, and in doing so, it alienates those who do not adhere to that faith. How can we, in good conscience, support a resolution that denies us our rightful place in the state?” (Barma, 1949).
The Aftermath and Long-term Implications of the Objective Resolution Pakistan
Despite the opposition from minority members, the Objective Resolution was passed by the Constituent Assembly on March 12, 1949. The passage of the resolution marked a turning point in Pakistan’s constitutional history, as it set the stage for the inclusion of Islamic principles in the country’s legal and political framework. For the minorities, however, the resolution represented a betrayal of the promises made to them during the struggle for independence.
In the years that followed, the fears expressed by the minorities during the debate over the Objective Resolution began to materialize. The incorporation of Islamic principles into the constitution and legal system of Pakistan led to the marginalization of non-Muslims in various aspects of life, including politics, education, and employment. The Objective Resolution, which was eventually made a substantive part of Pakistan’s constitution in 1985, became a symbol of the challenges faced by minorities in their quest for equal citizenship and religious freedom (Mahmood, 1990).
Conclusion
The opposition to the Objective Resolution of 1949 by Pakistan’s minorities was rooted in their fears of marginalization and religious discrimination. Despite the assurances given by the majority, the resolution’s emphasis on Islam raised legitimate concerns about the future of religious freedom and equal citizenship in Pakistan. The passage of the resolution marked the beginning of a long struggle for minorities in Pakistan, as they continued to fight for their rights in a state that increasingly prioritized its Islamic identity. The legacy of the Objective Resolution serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding the rights of all citizens, regardless of their faith, in the pursuit of a just and equitable society.
References
Singha, S. P. (1949). Debate on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Barma, P. H. (1949). Debate on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Bhattacharya, C. K. (1949). Debate on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Chattopadhyay, S. C. (1949). Debate on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Choudhury, G. W. (1955). Constitutional Development in Pakistan. Longmans, Green and Co.
Datta, B. K. (1949). Debate on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Khan, L. A. (1949). Speech on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Mandal, J. N. (1949). Debate on the Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, March 1949.
Mahmood, T. (1990). Constitutional Foundations of Pakistan: Towards a Pluralistic State? Vanguard Books.