further the status of the state has been explained that it is to be “independent and sovereign” and that would, I hope, meet the point of Mr. Kamini Kumar Datta about “national sovereignty” because he had proposed an amendment on that point. It is not only the sovereignty of God that has been referred to in the Resolution but within certain limits prescribed by Him: the sovereignty and independence of the Pakistan state has also been declared. So, so far as the “national sovereignty” is concerned that has been secured. The status has been declared but the nature of the state has not been described, and rightly so. The word “democratic” 'has lost all its meaning in the present day world as was stated by one of my friends just now. The state of England with a king-who is there “by the grace of God” is “democratic". The people of America with an all-powerful President have a “democratic” State. France, with peculiar system of Government that is known to all of us is a “democratic” State, So is the case with Holland. Russia also claim to be a “democratic” State and although it was not stated by one Honorable Member probably he meant by “democratic state” the Russian democracy. Now how to interpret this word “democratic” in the present day world? How to interpret it when Kings and no Kings, presidents and no presidents. Parliamentary system of Government and nonparliamentary system of Government and even a state like Russia, which is accused by the so-called democracies to be a dictatorship-all claim to be democratic states. I think it was better to avoid the word “democratic” to give the real features of the state and leave it to the people to judge for themselves whether ours is a good constitution or a bad constitution. And after all what is in a name? Call the rose by any name and it will smell sweet. The nature of the state has not been described but the features-the important features have-been given. If the word “democratic” had been used it would have been interpreted in the light of the present-day multifarious interpretations of this word that exist in the world in different manners by different people.
Sir, the Mover has given as the real features of the State and these features clearly. right at first sight, prove, show and disclose that the state that we shall have, the constitution that is intended to be framed, will be a constitution which will provide for a government of the people and by the people. The last clause says that the constitution is for the purpose of making the people of Pakistan prosper. This shows that it will be for the people also. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to borrow a sentence from Abraham Lincoln and put it in our Objectives Resolution. It is necessary to borrow a word and put it in this Resolution which has lost all its meaning: I mean the word “democratic". Lookat the provisions of the Resolution, look at the main features that have been given in the Resolution and the emphasis upon the people, the right of the people and the representatives of the people and the authority of the people. After that I do not see any justification for the suspicion that the Resolution, that we have, would mean that the voice of the people will not be supreme. As I understand it, Sir, it will be constitutions which will be purely democratic constitution in that meaning of the term which the Muslims know. It means that even the humblest will have the right to criticize the highest....
