Liaquat thwarted theocracy

Liaquat is often referred to as Jinnah's "right hand man" and heir apparent. He is credited with having headed the team of lieutenants which had so successfully put Jinnah's plans through during the momentous 1937-47 decade, which made Pakistan possible. His decisive role in filling in the vacuum caused by Jinnah's sad demise so superbly, in tackling stupendous and critical problems so deftly, and in divising measures for the consolidation of Pakistan so meticulously has won high praise from both contemporary observers and historians. "No one played the role of Cavour to his leader's Mazzini", wrote The Times of India (Bombay). "He guided the fortunes of his country with a certainty which amounted to genius", remarked The Stateman (Calcutta) on his assassination.
However, one crucial role that has somehow lain ignored or missed concerns his contribution in thwarting the rise of theocracy in Pakistan. In perspective - that is, against the backdrop of developments in terms of the religious parties' credo and aspirations, the proliferation of sectarianism and of the rise of sectarian violence, especially during the past twenty-six years - this contribution was both substantial and critical.
This Liaquat did through the Objectives Resolution (1949). Instead of commending the Resolution for attempting a progressive interpretation of Islam, some of our esteemed latter day intellectuals find the references to Islam therein a little problematical, especially cavilling at the sovereignty clause, without, however, realising that not only the Irish constitution but several others contain such references without compromising their status as modern, democratic states. Indeed, had the Resolution been retrogressive in this respect, it surely would not have elicited the kind of defence and support as it did from the foremost spokesman of the Left in Pakistan's formative years - Mian Muhammad Iftikharuddin.
Besides felicitating Liaquat for having brought in the Resolution "at long last" and for having had it "couched in beautiful words", the Mian Sahib said "The objections that have been raised by the members of the Congress Party on this Resolution relate to the statement that power is derived from God. It has been said that it gives that constitution a theocratic approach. Sir, I assure the members of the Congress Party that the wording of the Preamble does not in any way make this Objectives Resolution any the more theocratic, any the more religious than the Resolution or the statement of fundamental principles of some of the modern countries of the world. We know, Sir, that the constitutions of many countries start, if not with exactly the same, at least by somewhat similar words. Ireland is not the only country that I know of, the constitution of which starts with somewhat similar words about God. Practically every country of British Empire derives its authority through the agency of the King from God. It is always mentioned, the King Emperor, by the Grace of God, and, so on. The members of the Congress Party need feel no more nervous than do the subjects of British Empire or the citizens of the Irish Free State on the wording of the Resolution.
"... Sir, the authority, whether we say it or not, is derived from that Higher Power. It does not lie within our power to change the laws of nature or to add to or detract from the power of Nature's God. Therefore, in having stated that, we have not done anything very extraordinary, and the Members of the Congress Party may rest assured that the God of the Muslims, the conception of Allah in the Muslim religion, is in no way less merciful than the conception of the Almighty in other religions, the objection from the Party opposite is not an important objection at all."
Liaquat, on his part, was emphatic that the sovereignty clause did not in any way compromise the democratic nature of the state visualised for Pakistan, saying "... All authority is a sacred trust, entrusted to us by God for the purpose of being exercised in the service of man, so that it does not become an agency for tyranny or selfishness. I would, however, point out that this is not a resuscitation of the dead theory of Divine Right of Kings or rulers, because, in accordance with the spirit of Islam, the Preamble fully recognises the truth that authority has been delegated to the people, and to none else, and that it is for the people to decide who exercises that authority."
"For this reason it has been made clear in the Resolution that the State shall exercise all its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. This is the very essence of democracy, because the people have been recognised as the recipients of all authority and it is in them that the power to wield it has been vested."
Whether or not the members of the Constituent Assembly were clear on some issues, they were quite explicit in resolving that if Pakistan were to become an "Islamic democracy", it should be by the choice of its citizens. This explains why the Resolution recognises the peoples - all "the people, irrespective of whatever faith they may follow", as emphasised by Kamini Kumar Dutta, during the Objectives Resolution debate - as the vehicle of "the authority" delegated by God to the state of Pakistan.
It is rather significant that the Resolution speaks of or refers to "the people" in four other clauses and lays emphasis on the rights of the people, the representation of the people, the prosperity of the people, their place in the comity of nations, and the exercise of power and authority by the chosen representatives of the people. Thus, the Resolution tends to be people-oriented. Inexplicably though, this salient feature has generally lain ignored in most discussions on the Resolution.
Equally significant, almost all the Muslim participants in the debate on the Resolution emphatically rejected theocracy as a system, and denied any sort of nexus between the Resolution and the theocratic concept. Liaquat himself set the tone, saying, "Sir, I just now said that the people are the real recipients of power. This naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy. It is true that in its literal sense, the theocracy means the Government of God; in this sense, however, it is patent that the entire universe is a theocracy, for is there any corner in the entire creation where His authority does not exist"? But "in the technical sense theocracy has come to mean a Government by ordained priests, who wield authority as being especially appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position. I cannot over-emphasise the fact that such an idea in absolutely foreign to Islam. Islam does not recognise either priesthood or any sacerdotal authority; and, therefore, the question of a theocracy simply does not arise in Islam. If there are any who still use the word theocracy in the same breath as the polity of Pakistan, they are either labouring under a grave misapprehension, or indulging in mischievous propaganda."
Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani also emphasised the fundamental fact that "an Islamic State does not mean the 'Government of the Ordained Priests'", adding, "How could Islam countenance the false idea which the Quran so emphatically repudiated in the following words... (x, Tauba, 5)?"
In his address, Mian Iftikharuddin emphasised repeated by the "authority" of the people saying," "you must remember that we have no ordained priests, we have no licensed Ulema. In other words we cannot go and appeal to a final authority as can the people of Roman Catholic countries to the Pope or to the Priesthood. We, the Muslims, can appeal to no other authority on earth than the people."
Indeed, till the end, Liaquat missed no opportunity to emphasise the authority of the people, and the democratic ethos, and to decry theocracy. Thus, during his US tour (May-June 1950), he assured, "We have pledged that the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people. In this we have kept steadily before us the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam. There is no room here for theocracy, for Islam stands for freedom of conscience, condemns coercion, has no priesthood and abhors the caste system (emphasis added).
It believes in the equality of all men and in the right of each individual to enjoy the fruit of his or her efforts, enterprise, capacity and skill - provided these be honestly employed. Of course, the Resolution enabled "Muslims ... to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah", but in the same breath made "adequate provision ... for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religion and develop their culture" (emphasis added).
Above all, what Liaquat did, inter alia, was to establish the principle that should Pakistan opt for a sort of "Islamic democracy", it should be through the will of the people expressed through their chosen representatives. What a tremendous step forward in terms of a progressive and enlightened version of Islam this principle or paradigm represents can be assessed by a reference to the Saudi, Sudanese or Iranian models in which the fiat, rather than the people's will, serves as the critical variable.
Thus, for the past sixty six years, the Objectives Resolution has served as a bulwark against the rise of theocracy in Pakistan. Since there is little chance of the so-called religious parties ever gaining a two thirds majority through electoral politics, it would continue to serve as a bulwark in the future as well. And the Resolution was, above all, the handiwork of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan.
(The writer, an HEC Distinguished National Professor, is Co-editor of Unesco's History of Humanity, Vol. VI, and The Jinnah Anthology (3rd edn., 2011), and editor of In Quest of Jinnah (2007).