By Abdullah Al-Ahsan
Seventy five years have passed since Pakistan Resolution was adopted in Lahore on March 23, 1940. Ten years earlier poet-philosopher Muhammad Iqbal came up with the idea. Today many authors call Pakistan a failed state. The other day a journalist of Indian origin who works for a Malaysian daily asked me why Pakistan with most fertile lands of the Indian sub-continent suffers from such an economic quagmire. He thought as a student of history I might have an insight into the question – why is Pakistan is considered by many a failed state today? Some international researchers have identified it “in a terminal decline”, foreseeing its “failure in five or six years”, or in “a deeply troubled state”. Many Pakistanis too are asking similar questions. A Pakistani journalist writing on the subject a few months back said, “The state has failed them (Pakistanis) miserably. If this dangerous drift continues the state will have failed itself too. So much so that it may forfeit the right to call itself a viable entity. Many patriots will take umbrage with this assessment but what else will Pakistan be when its key institutions fail to stand up for it?” (http://www.dawn.com/news/1140167). With the growth of extremism mostly in the name of religion, but also occasionally in the name of ethnicity and linguistic identity, the country has immersed into chaos. What went wrong in Pakistan? Were the founding fathers at fault while demanding Pakistan?
A major predicament of this Resolution is that it was moved by AK Fazlul Haq of Bengal, part of which later became East Pakistan and now Bangladesh. Although 1940 Resolution demanded autonomous and sovereign states where Muslims constituted majority population, in 1946 it was amended to demand one independent and sovereign Pakistan and within less than 25 years East Pakistan seceded. Again, did the founding fathers made a mistake by slashing ‘states’ to ‘state’? Were they considering practical difficulties about demanding two separate states for Muslims in the sub-continent? How would such a demand fit to the two-nation theory coined and promoted by Muhammad Ali Jinnah? It will be extremely difficult to pass any judgment without proper knowledge and investigation of history of the time. Unfortunately little academic works have been conducted on the subject.
Early Challenges to Pakistan
Surprisingly Pakistan survived the initial odds such as the lack of an established capital city, a secretariat and bureaucracy. India refused to hand over Pakistan’s share of the funds from the central treasury. However, the main challenge that Pakistan encountered immediately after independence in 1947 was formulation of a constitution. The nationhood was achieved on the basis of religious identity but the idea of nationhood was developed in Europe through a struggle against the established church. The dilemma was about the status of non-Muslims in Pakistan. In a speech at the constituent assembly Jinnah is said to have said, “(Every Pakistani is) a citizen of this state with equal rights privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make … we are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens to one state. ..I think we should keep that in front as our ideal, and you will find that in the course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense citizens of the state.” Interestingly Jinnah appointed a non-Muslim as the first Law Minister of the country and incidentally the first Law Secretary too was a non-Muslim. Did these make Jinnah a secular leader ? Based on the above facts some authors have suggested this. However, the question that one needs to ask in this context is – whether or not these steps were against the teachings of Islam, the basic ideology and religion that laid down the foundation of the demand for Pakistan.
Let us consider the Qur’anic verse 4: 58 in this context. Chronologically this verse is the last to be revealed and was most significant from the perspective of governance of society. Addressing the believers the verse commands, “Render the trust to whom they are due; and judge between people, do it with justice.” The occasion of the revelation of this verse and the Prophet’s understanding of this verse is very significant. This verse was revealed immediately after the liberation of Makkah. Following the liberation ‘Abbas, the prophet’s uncle, demanded the key of the Ka‘ba from the clan Bani ‘Abd ad-Dar, who were responsible for guarding the key and were not yet Muslim. The Prophet granted the request. On this occasion this verse was revealed. Immediately the Prophet took back the key from ‘Abbas and returned to ‘Uthman ibn Abi Talha and his cousin Shaybah ibn ‘Uthman, the two representative figures of Bani ‘Abd ad-Dar. The rationale behind this act was that the clan was traditionally maintaining the trust of the people with the key and had been providing the necessary services to pilgrims, and therefore there was no need to deprive them of the honor and responsibility. It is noteworthy that the key remained with Bani ‘Abd ad-Dar till they willingly choose to follow Islam. The verse is followed by guidance for the believers on leadership and governance of society: “Follow God, follow the prophet, and those from among you who have been entrusted with authority (4: 59).” The Qur’anic concepts of ‘adalah or justice and amanah or trust and their implication in the society must be understood in the light of these verses.
Jinnah’s fundamental thrust also were the principles of justice and trust. He had already experienced failure in ensuring justice for Muslims and other minorities in undivided independent India and wanted to cultivate the same in independent Pakistan. He was motivated by ideas of poet-philosopher Iqbal, who on his part, was sparked by Rumi’s understanding of Islam. Iqbal wanted to see Pakistan as a model unit for justice and development not only for the Muslim world, but for whole of humanity. But Iqbal’s dream turned out to a nightmare. But why and how did this happen?
Early Efforts to Frame a Constitution
Initially Pakistan did fairly well. Muslims representing various legal and religious factions came up with the “Objective Resolution” in 1949 and on the basis of this resolution a new constitution was framed in 1956. Remarkably Justice AR Cornelius, who served as law secretary not only to Pakistan’s first Law Minister but also to the first Prime Minister, played a momentous role in formulation of the constitution and securing rights of non-Muslims in the country. Cornelius was a strong believer in natural law which he thought corresponded well both with Christian values and the principles of Shari’ah.
But the country encountered unprecedented barriers in the constitutional making process. The first the constituent assembly was dissolved by a bureaucrat, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, who by co-coincidence become the Governor General of the country. Then the dissolution received judicial blessing by another bureaucrat who became the Chief Justice of the country: Justice Munir coined the term “Doctrine of Necessity” to justify Ghulam Muhammad’s action – an action that was destined to be used by later military dictators in Pakistan. However, within a year a second constituent assembly was composed and a new constitution was promulgated in March 1956 but only to be abrogated by another military-bureaucrat, Iskandar Ali Khan Mirza, in 1958. This happened just before the first scheduled general election in the country. Thus Pakistan’s nascent democratic suffered heavily. A few days ago I had the opportunity to chat with a cabinet minister in Pakistan’s current government who was on a visit to Malaysia. The minister was proud to claim that Pakistan was maturing in democratic transition: the current government has come to power democratically after the regular completion of the previous government. Also out of four provinces in three provinces opposition parties have formed the government, he claimed. Although some opposition parties have complained about election-rigging, overall a democratic atmosphere seems to have been created in Pakistan. Will Pakistan take advantage of this atmosphere? Will Pakistanis cultivate a culture of accountability and transparency?
Is Cultivation of Values Possible?
On this day, March 23, 2015 the question that Pakistanis must ask – who served the country better: Muslims committed to Machiavellian values such as bureaucrats like Ghulam Muhammad, Iskandar Mirza and Justice Munir or non-Muslims such as Justice Cornelius who was committed to human (Christian) values. An American academic has described Cornelius’ position as one of negating the clash of civilizations thesis. (See Ralph Braibanti, “Cornelius of Pakistan: Catholic Chief Justice of a Muslim state” in Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. 10, No 2, 1999). The question of the status of non-Muslims in Pakistan has come into sharp focus in recent years. That is why Pakistanis should contemplate on this question on this day. But more important question that demands contemplation today is the question of Muslims in Muslim societies. This is important not only for Pakistani Muslims, but for all Muslims around the world.
Professor Abdullah Al-Ahsan is an academic who is also the Vice-President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).
27 March 2015.