Sir, it has been said that the secular parliamentary form of government is the only form of democracy. What is meant by 'secular'? I would like my friend to consult the dictionary. The dictionary lays it down that secular is on-monastic, anything which is not dependent upon the sweet will of the priests. When we say that no priesthood is recognized by Islam, we do not know why it is said again and again that our democracy is not secular. Is it to be run by any priesthood? There is such a considerable amount of confusion in the use of the word 'secular', that one gets sick of it. Of course, if the word “secular” means that the ideals of Islam, that the fundamental principles of religion, that the ethical outlook which religion inculcates in our people should not be observed, then I am afraid, Sir, that kind of secular democracy can never be acceptable to us in Pakistan. (Hear, hear)..........
10th MARCH 1949
The Honourable Sardar Abdur Rab Khan Nishtar (West Punjab: Muslim): Sir, the criticism that has been leveled against this Resolution by the Members of the Opposition Party and also by my friend who just spoke, seems, with all respect to them, to be based on some misunderstanding. I will deal with the main amendments that were proposed by some Honorable Members and will endeavor to show whether they are really necessary in view of certain paragraphs of the Resolution where similar thoughts are expressed in a different language, or the suggestions made are such which should be accepted by this House.
The first and the main Opposition was voiced against the Preamble of the Resolution and the basic idea that was put forward in support of this adverse criticism was that politics is different from religion, politics should be divorced from religion and politics should have nothing to do with the religion. Both have different spheres and therefore they should not be mingled together in the affairs of the state. Well, Sir, so far as this point is concerned, the world knows, and particularly those who belong to the Indo-Pak continent know it very well, that on this point there is fundamental difference between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. I can well understand the reason for that difference. May be that the non-Muslims who advocate divorce between religion and politics look at this point from the point of view of their own religion. May be that their religion lays down that religion is only a matter which concerns the relations of a man with his Creator and thus far and no further. But we, the Muslims and our Leader, the foremost Leader of the Muslims, the Quaid-i-Azam, have declared it from thousands of platforms that our outlook on life and of life is quite different from the outlook of our friends. We believe that our religion governs not only our relations with God, but also our activities in other spheres of life. We have always described it, and rightly described it, as a complete code of life. Therefore, if in spite of this knowledge and in spite of the controversy that has been going on for years in the Indo-Pak sub-continent, it is expected of us to-day to accept that philosophy which has been advanced by my friends who have opposed the Preamble, I would submit it is too much. That is not our belief. Our view about this point is quite different. So, let there be no misunderstanding on that point. But this in no way
affects them. They should examine it from this point of view whether this philosophy or this outlook of life in any way adversely affects their legitimate interests. If on account
