বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (প্রথম খণ্ড)/১২০
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
| অবজেকটিভ রেজলিউশন সংক্রান্ত বিতর্ক! | পাকিস্তান গণপরিষদ-এর কার্যবিবরণী | ৭-১২ মার্চ, ১৯৪৯ |
[Excerpts from the Official Report of the Fifth Session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates.]
Monday, the 7th March, 1949
Mr. Prem Hari Barma (East Bengal General): Mr. President, Sir I beg to move:
"That the Motion"[১] be circulated for eliciting public opinion there on by the 30th April, 1949".
Sir, the Objectives Resolution which we shall pass shall be the foundation stone of the structure of the constitution of the Pakistan State. The constitution which will be framed by this august body will govern the people of Pakistan not only for generations but for centuries to come, because the constitution of a country, once framed, is scarcely changed or modified. The foundation of the constitution must be strong, sound and solid so that the structure built upon it may last long and may not give way after some time. For this purpose, not only the Members of the Constituent Assembly, who entrusted with this noble work, should have time to carefully examine the pros and cons of the proposed Objectives Resolution, but the public also whom we have the honor to represent here. must have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on it. If we get the opinion of the public and if the opinion of the public is in support of it then our task and responsibility will be mush lighter.
I do not think that we shall be right in passing the Resolution in hot haste, without giving any opportunity to the public to express their opinion. It took about ten years to frame the constitution of the United States of America. It will not, therefore, matter much if it is taken up and considered after seven or eight weeks.
We must not forget that our State of Pakistan consists of peoples professing various religions and having different social customs and cultures. We must not proceed with the work of framing the constitution in such a way as may cause apprehension, distrust or anything of the kind to any section of the people. The members of the Constituent Assembly, irrespective of the community to which they may belong, have the sacred duty and trust imposed upon them to look equally to the rights and interests, whether political, social or religious of all section of the people of Pakistan. We should give opportunity and time to all sections of the people of Pakistan to examine and see whether this Objectives Resolution is acceptable to all of them or not. If we see that some portion of the, Objectives Resolution is not acceptable to any section of the population, then we should try to amend or modify that portion of the Resolution to make it acceptable to all. There is no doubt that the Constituent Assembly has every right and authority to pass any resolution concerning the constitution or any constitution it likes, but I think that it will not be fair for the Constituent Assembly to pass hurriedly any resolution of a vital character, on which will solely depend the destiny of people of Pakistan for generations and nay for centuries to come.
Tuesday, the 8tli March, 1949.
MOTION RE: AIMS AND OBJECTS-Contd.
Mr. Bhupeudra Kumar Datta (East Bengal: General): Sir, I beg to move “That the paragraph beginning with the words whereas sovereignty over the entire universe and ending with the words is a sacred trust be omitted.”
Sir, let me make it clear at the outset that I am not moving this amendment because I happen to be in the Opposition. I am moving it in no spirit of opposition; nor am I moving it as a member of the minority community. Whatever the minorities are to get under the constitution is indicated, in the substantive clauses of the Resolution. Sir. I feel, even if I were among the majority in the House, both by religious and political persuasion, I would move this amendment at this hour of the day.
Sir, we are hereby the will of the people of our newly-won independent State of Pakistan to draw up a constitution for its future governance. Although all powers of an independent Slate emanate from the sovereign powers of its people, certain laws, rules and regulations must guide and control the relations between the people and the State. Such laws, rules and regulations have in the modern world come within the domain of matters, political. The relations between a State and its citizens may be, and have been throughout the ages, of diverse forms, but whatever the forms, they are subjects properly of politics. On the other hand, the relation between man and God comes within the sphere of religion. In all ages, there have been men and women who have believed that not a grass grows, not a leaf falls, not a star shows itself except by the will of God. Similarly, whatever takes place there in human affairs is guided and controlled by God. Many in this House, I have no doubt in my mind, do believe that we could not be assembled here except by the will of the Creator. But even if they do believe it, they go about their business, even about the business of this House, with that tacit, albeit, deep faith, with that un-exhibited background of the mind-they go about it in all devoutness, all humility, without making a flourish of it.
Thus even in a world where vast numbers of men had a more living faith than today in the omnipresence and omnipotence of God, they found it more convenient, more suitable, more methodical to assign proper spheres to their relation with their Maker and to their relation with their ruling power of governing apparatus.
Nay, Sir, let me go further, Politics and religion belong to two different regions of the mind, even if it be held that these two regions are inter-related by the presence of God, or even if, say, by the unity, integrity or indivisibility of the human mind or human personality. For the special study, development and working of each region, we get them more conveniently separated. Thus separated-even without denying the unifying bond either of God or of the human personality-politics comes within the sphere of reason, while religion within that of faith.
The two-reason and faith-may blend together perfectly. But we allow each to work separately in order that each may grow to its fullest maturity so that a higher synthesis of the two may be attained-a mellower blending Even in the evolution towards that ultimate end, the two may be working hand in hand but unobtrusively.
We know, Sir, whenever either has become obtrusive at the cost of the other either in individuals or in groups, convulsions have taken place-convulsions, that in the case of groups, have caused infinite human misery, that have flung States as under, that have debased men. We need not look to Europe in the Middle Ages or for the other side of the picture to the Worship of Reason during the French Revolution. We may look to various chapters of the history of this subcontinent. I need not mention periods. Even two years earlier, we did not behave as if we were rational human beings. We so behaved because on each side, faith became predominant over reason, what normally should have. remained unobtrusive became obtrusive.
I feel, Sir, in this House I am treading on exceedingly delicate grounds. But let me put it to you, Sir in all humility.-whatever relation most of us may think or feel, subsists between us and our Maker or between this great State and its people and God Almighty. need we be obtrusive with it, need we make a flourish of it on this occasion when we have met here for a political purpose-for framing the constitution of the State?
Politics, as I have said, Sir, belongs to the domain of reason. But as you intermingle it with religion, as this Preamble to this nobly conceived Resolution does, you pass into the other sphere of faith. The same is done in the paragraph on “Sovereignty” on page 13 of the 1st volume of Select Constitutions of the World, circulated by the Constituent Assembly Office. Thereby, on the one hand, you run the risk of subjecting religion to criticism, which will rightly be resented as sacreligious; on the other hand, so far as the State and State policies are concerned, you cripple reason, curb criticism, Political institutions-particularly modern democratic institutions-as we all know, Sir grow and progress by criticism from broader to still broader basis. As long as you remain strictly within the region of politics, criticism may be free and frank, even severe and bitter.
But as you bring in religion, or things as matters of faith, you open the door ajar for resentment of criticism. You then leave it to absolutism to fling it wide open. Sir, I feel-I have every reason to believe-that were this Resolution to come before this House within the life-time of the Great Creator of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, it would not have come in its present shape. Even with you Sir, the Honourable Mover of this Resolution at the helm of affairs in the State, I have no fear that criticism will be stifled or absolutism will find a chance to assert itself.
But, Sir, we are framing a constitution, which will outlive us, may be, even many of our succeeding generations. So, as far as human reason can guard against it, let us not do anything here today that may consign our future generations to the furies of a behind destiny. May be, may God forbid it, but some day, perhaps even within our lifetimeextremely troublous times as we live in-a political adventurer, a Yanshikai, or a Bachcha-i-Sakao may find a chance to impose his will and authority on this State. He may find a justification for it in this Preamble. To people of our State, he may justify his claim on the clause in it that refers to the delegation of the Almighty's authority to the State through its people. He has only to forge a further- link and get it delegated through the State to himself and declare that he is the Ruler of Pakistan, anointed by his Maker.
Besides, Sir, shall we not be prudent to avoid the deification of the State that the Preamble implies? In recent history, Hitler did it. But I am sure, Sir, the Honorable Mover of this Resolution found no merit in that act of Hitler's. Nor the world very much appreciated it. And at the hour when we have come so very near to the rest of the world, we, in this House, shall not be wise to ignore it.
Prof. Raj Kumar Chakraverty: Sir. I beg to move:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words This Constituent Assembly’ after the words ‘independent’ the word 'democratic' be inserted.”
So that with the amendment, the paragraph will read thus:
“This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a constitution for the sovereign, independent, democratic State of Pakistan.”
Sir, I take it that this paragraph states the character of the constitution that we shall have. In the first paragraph of the Preamble we have been told that the authority which God has delegated to the State of Pakistan for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust, and this paragraph proposes to give us the character of the constitution. It says that the constitution would be a sovereign constitution, it will be independent, but the word 'democratic' is not there. I want to add the word “democratic” in this connection, just after the word 'independent'. My arguments will be very short. I consider the description of the constitution in this paragraph is not all perfect. It is not the complete description. The word 'democratic' should have been here.. While telling about the constitution, we should tell the public and the world that the constitution or the form of Government that we shall have will be of this kind or that kind. Whether the Government will be ruled by one man or it will be ruled by a few persons or the Government will be in the hands of many persons, we should state clearly. It may be monarchy; it may be despotism; it may be oligarchy; or it may be democracy. I believe that our Government will be a democratic one, but that is not stated here. That is my complaint and that is why I move the amendment.
Sir, to day, there is a great unrest throughout the world and you know the reasons of this unrest. One of them is that the common men-ordinary people-have no voice in the administration of their Government. They are the producers of the means of our livelihood. They are the workers on the fields and in the factories and unless voice is given to them in the affairs of the State, this unrest of the world will not subside. Up till now, of all the forms of Government that have been evolved, democracy with all its imperfections of the best sort of Government. Therefore, Sir, we ought to put the word is 'democracy here, so that we might cure the world of all the unrest and of all the undesirable elements that have crept into our administration. If the word 'democratic' is put here, the Resolution will go before the world with a message of hope, with a message of cheers that we are going to have a rule by the people, a Government of the people, for the people and by the people. No doubt, Sir, in the fourth paragraph which says that “the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed", the word 'democracy occurs, but I submit that in that paragraph the word 'democracy is used in a very vague and loose sense and that the principle of democracy is to be applied generally in all our institutions, in all our affairs of life, so in this paragraph, where we are going to characterize the constitution of this State, I want to clinch the issue and say definitely now and here that we shall have a democratic form of Government an no other.
MOTION RE: AIMSAINU OBJECTS-contd.
9thMARCH, 1949
Mr. President: The Resolution and amendments are now open to discussion.
Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi (East Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President Sir, I would like to complement the movers of the various amendments on the excellent speeches that they have made. Most of these speeches were thought provoking and I am sure that the sentiments of patriotism which have been expressed by various movers of the amendments have been most welcome, not only to us on this side of the House, but. I believe, to the entire nation. Sir, it is in the spirit of the patriotism shown by the movers of the amendments that I would like to make a few comments upon the speeches-and the arguments contained therein-which were made in support of the various amendments. Sir; I divide those speeches into two categories. The first category reveals a fundamental difference of outlook between the mover and the supporters of the Resolution, on the one hand, and the movers of the amendments, on the other. The other speeches, which to my mind fall into the second category, are based upon a fear, a fear which cannot be justified by a close study of the wordings of the Resolution and the principles which are embodied therein. With your permission, Sir, I would like to deal first with the fundamental difference of opinion that seems to exist between certain movers of the amendments and some of us.
Sir, it has been said that politics and religion should be completely divorced from each other, that politics and religion belongs to different aspects of human activity and indeed, it has been said that one being founded on reason and the other on faith, they should be related to different compartments of the human mind. I would submit most humbly that this is impossible. They cannot be divorced from each other for the simple reason that our reason is fashioned by our faith and our faith is fashioned by our reason. Unless we can think cogently we cannot possibly have faith in any ideal, and unless we have some faith, it would be absolutely impossible for us to chalk out the channels into which our thought should run. Therefore, I would say that it is absolutely impossible to accept the theory of a split personality. It is impossible to accept the view that we should keep our faith apart from our political behavior and that certain aspect of our behavior should be fashioned purely by reason and certain other aspects purely by faith. I would leave the further discussion of this abstruse problem to the psychologists who may have studied it. I would submit that we, in any case, cannot subscribe to the view advocating divorce between faith and reason. To us religion is not like a Sunday suit which can be put on when we enter a place of worship and put off When we are dealing with day-today life. This conception is absolutely foreign to us. Let us examine this a little further. What does the Resolution say? The Resolution says that our policy should be based upon God consciousness. It has been said that God may be there, but do not bring him into your lives. I am reminded of a song which was fashionable amongst the Epicurean philosophers during the later period of the Roman Empire, which said: “There are no gods, but if there be, they do not meddle, with the affairs of humanity.” This deity epitomized the attitude which took the Roman civilization to its undeserved end. Are we to repeat the same mistakes today? Are we really to divorce politics completely from ethical and spiritual principles?; It has been said that if we permit religion to enter the realm of politics, there may be convulsions, there may be revolutions and wars. It is quite true that sometimes humanity has erred and waged wars on the basis of religion. But is it not a fact that the wars which have been fought in the lifetime of all of us were not fought for religion? I challenge anybody to prove that there was any war that was ever fought in the history of the world for religion which was so disastrous as these wars. Let us not bring such confused thinking into the consideration of this Resolution. Vast convulsions are not caused by faith they are caused by the lack of faith. It is when we de not work within the limits set down by ethics, by religion, by spiritual truth that we really get so narrow-minded, so jealous of the good things that others possess that we enter into the realm of war. I would go even further and say that whenever politics has been completely divorced from ethical principles, the sanction for which lies in our faith and not in anything else, humanity has been overtaken by disaster. I am quite willing to quote chapter and verse that various convulsions that have overtaken humanity have been the result of lack of faith. Was it not that the Goddess of Reason was enshrined at Paris? Is it not a fact that bloodshed came in the wake of her enthronement? Has humanity forgotten the days of Red Terror followed by the White Terror? Therefore, for Heaven's sake, do not confuse matter. Whenever the emotions of people exercised very deeply and whenever these emotions are not controlled by ethical principles which should govern the life of humanity, there has been a disaster. Therefore, Sir, I am afraid, it will not be possible at least for me to describe to the idea that religion and politics should tie completely divorced. If anybody were to say that religious prejudice should not be permitted to effect our relation with humanity, I would certainly say, ‘Yes’.
......................................................................................
A large number of other arguments have been advanced. It has been said that so far as the fundamental principles of Islam are concerned, they may be as have been explained by the Honorable the Mover of the Resolution, but then it is asked, “How can you guarantee the fact that tomorrow there will not arise interpreters who will interpret these very terms in a different manner” Well, Sir, who can ever guarantee that? Can any constitution of the world guarantee such a thing? So long as you lay down a law, there is always scope for interpretation. Humanly speaking, who can promise that any limits laid down today or any constitution adopted today may not be interpreted in a different manner tomorrow? But we are laying down at least one limit which cannot be provided simply by constitutional methods, and it is this. This constitution may be interpreted, as it will be, by people who come after us. We cannot bind our successors; but these interpretations must at least follow the fundamental principles which have been embodied for anybody to study in our Scriptures. Besides, it is said that simply by bringing in religion and by recognizing the principles of the sovereignty of God, we are laying the foundation of absolute authority. Not only that but we are also accused of laying the foundations of the deification of the State. I am afraid nothing could possibly betray a greater ignorance of the very words of the Preamble. The Preamble recognizes right in the beginning that all authority is delegated through the people to the State and that authority really belongs to God and to none else. If that is so how can a person believing in the existence of God simultaneously believe in the deification of the State?......
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 of this, legitimate interests of minorities suffer one could understand their position. But submit that they have no ground for complaint. As a matter of fact, when we say that our code of life is Islam and we want that we should live as Muslims and our Constitution should be based on Islamic principles, it give the minorities a very great guarantee, a guarantee which no other Constitution would had given to them. It saves them from the tyranny of the majority. They know that in constitutions, which are known as democratic constitutions what the tyranny of the majority means. When we say that the authority that is to be exercised in this state is an authority conferred by the Almighty, who is the Sovereign of the whole Universe and it is a sacred trust from Him to be exercised through the people of Pakistan, they should try to understand the implications of this declaration. What a responsibility this declaration lays upon the shoulders of the majority. It gives the minorities a very great guarantee, a very strong security, against the tyranny of the majority, because the majority who happens to be in power will have to exercise this authority as a sacred trust from one who is the Sovereign of the minorities and of the majority. Therefore, when we say that the constitution shall be based on Islamic principle and the authority of State is derived from the Almighty who is not only the sovereign of Pakistan but of the whole universe, the minority should welcome it. I think it was due to some misunderstanding that they have opposed it. When we say that the Almighty is the sovereign of the whole universe and not only of Pakistan, it is a statement of fact and whether we say it or not, it is true. This declaration implies a very very important principle and that is the principle of brotherhood of man all over the world. Therefore, I would submit that it is a principle and a declaration, which everybody should welcome.... It has been said why has it been laid down that the authority has been delegated to the state of Pakistan through its people? It was remarked that it is just possible that it may be misinterpreted by somebody. I would submit that anybody who properly studies it will not misinterpret it: only one who has just read it and not understood it will misinterpret it. This sentence has got a very important principle behind it. My friend, Mr. Chakraverty and my other friend. Mr. Kamini Kumar Datta themselves defined “State” as the organized will of the people. That is correct. We say that the authority is conferred upon the organized will of the people through the people. Where does the objection lie: Let me tell my friends what it means, and I hope after they come to know the real meaning of it, they will withdraw their objections. It means that Pakistan does not envisage anarchy. It means that Pakistan does not believe in a chaotic land, a land where there is no Government, where there is mere anarchyIslam believes in an organized existence-and, therefore, when we say this Resolution that the authority has been delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people it means that the authority has been conferred upon the people but is to be exercised by the people through their own organized will and in an organized manner. It is not that you have to live Just like people of the jungle under the law of the jungle. This is what is meant by this particular phrase. It does not in any way detract from the powers of the people. This position has been again and again explained, in the Resolution. Several amendments that have been put forward by my Honorable friend are all directed to one point because there is some misunderstanding in their minds that probably the State of Pakistan-the constitution of Pakistan-will not be based on democratic principles. They have proposed the words should be “conferred upon the people”. Another gentleman said the word democratic should be inserted. Another gentleman said that we should insert a clause applying the principle of Government of the people, for the people and by the people and so on and so forth. All these amendments were directed to one and one point: that the Constitution of Pakistan shall be a representative constitution, a constitution where the will of the people will be supreme and where no particular individual in the words of one of my friends will be able to arrogate authority to himself. I would submit. Sir, that if a man has, just a cursory glance of this Resolution no doubt will be left in his mind that all these thing had been safeguarded, not only safeguarded but effectively secured. There are at least five portions in this Resolution which relate to this particular point and I would just draw the attention of my Honorable friends to these five points and would ask them to keep the overall picture of this Resolution before their minds and then decide for themselves whether this particular principle has been safeguarded or not.
In the first paragraph, Sir in the Preamble it has been clearly stated that the authority has been “delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people”. Then in the second paragraph that immediately follows it, it is stated that:
“This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a constitution”.
Again emphasis has been laid on the representation by the people. Then in the third paragraph it has been stated very clearly.
“Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people”.
Then in the fourth Clause it is sated.
“Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed.”
And then ultimately the object of all these steps is stated to be.
“So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the nations of the world..............”
In view of this emphasis upon the people: the right of the people, the representation of the people, the prosperity of the people and the exercise of power and authority by the chosen representatives of the people, I do not think. Sir, there can be genuine doubt in the mind of any person about the fact that what is meant by the Mover of this Resolution is a democratic constitution in the real sense of the term. It might be said then: Why don't you accept the word “democratic”? Let me tell my friends that it is I think very right on the part of the Mover of the Resolution that he has avoided this word. As I see the Resolution, Sir, there appear to be two reasons for this. First of all, while describing the Pakistan State, the nature of the state has not been described in any particular term. The status of the state has been described as the sovereign independent state of Pakistan”. It was necessary to use the word “Pakistan”-of course, the name of the state is there-and 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....
12TM MARCH 1949
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhvaya (East Bengal: General): Mr. President, I thought after my colleague, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Datta, had spoken on the two amendments on behalf of the Congress Party, I would not take any part in this discussion. He appealed, he reasoned and made the Congress position fully clear, but after I heard some of the speakers from the majority Party viz, Muslim League Party, the manner in which they had interpreted the Resolution, it became incumbent on me to take part in this discussion.
I have heard Dr. Malik and appreciate his standpoint. He says that “we got Pakistan for establishing a Muslim State, and the Muslims suffered for it and therefore it was not desirable that anybody should speak against it”. I quite agree with him. He said: “If we establish a Muslim State and even if we become reactionaries, who are you to say anything against it?” That is a standpoint that I understand, but here there is some difficulty. We also, on this side, fought for the independence of the country. We worked for the independence of the entire country When our erstwhile masters, Britishers, were practically in the mood of going away, the country was divided one part became Pakistan and the other remained India. If in the Pakistan State there would have been only Muslims, the question would have been different. But there are some non-Muslims also in Pakistan. When they wanted a division, there was no talk of an exchange of population. If there was an exchange of population, there would have been an end of the matter, and Dr. Malik could establish his Pakistan in his own way and frame constitution accordingly. It is also true that part of Pakistan in which Dr. Malik lives is denuded of non-Muslims. That is clear.
Dr. Omar Hayat Malik: On a point of order, Sir, I never said that. He has understood me quite wrongly.
Mr. President: You may say something as a matter of personal explanation if you like.
Dr. Oniar Hayat Malik: I never said that Pakistan was denuded of non-Muslims. My friend on the opposite has misunderstood me.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: I say the part in which Dr Malik lives is denuded of non-Muslims. I did not say that Dr. Malik had said that Pakistan was denuded of non-Muslims. That is clear.
But we belong to East Bengal. One-fourth of the population is still non-Muslim. Therefore, what constitution is to be framed, it is our duty, it is in our interest to look to. We are not going to leave East Bengal. It is our homeland. It is not a land by our adoption. My forefathers, founder of my family, came to East Bengal thousand years back on the invitation of the King of Bengal. I am 27th in decent from him. Therefore, East Bengal is my land. I claim that East Bengal and Eastern Pakistan belongs to me as well as to any Mussalman and it will be my duty to make Pakistan a great, prospero and powerful State so that it may get a proper place in the comity of nations because I call myself a Pakistani. I wish that Pakistan must be a great State. That will be covetable to Muslims as well as to non-Muslims who are living in Eastern Bengal. A few people from East Bengal have left-may be five per cent, and my calculation is not even that. Of course, there are other calculations too-somebody says ten lakhs. We are living in East Bengal peacefully in peace and amity with our Muslim neighbors as we had been living from generations to generations. Therefore, I am anxious to see that its constitution is framed in such a way which may suit the Muslims as well as the non-Muslims. I have gone carefully through this Resolution and I have carefully, read made-to-order, nicelyworded statement of my esteemed friend, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan. But after reading the Resolution carefully and reading the statement, even after hearing the speeches of my friends, both the Doctors and others, I cannot change my opinion. I cannot persuade myself to accept this Resolution and my instruction to my party would be to oppose this Resolution.
Now, as for the first paragraph:
“Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust”.
This part of the Resolution, I think, ought to be deleted. All powers, in my opinion, rest with the people and they exercise their power through the agency of the State. State is merely their spokesman. The Resolution makes the State the sole authority received from God Almighty through the instrumentality of people-Nemittamatrorui, “Merely instruments of the State". People have no power or authority; they are merely post boxes according to this Resolution. The State will exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Him (God). What are those limits, who will interpret them? Dr. Qureshi or my respected Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Osmani? In case of difference, who win interpret? Surely they are not the people. One day a Louis XIV may come and say “I am the State, anointed by the Almighty” and thus paving the way for advent Divine Right of Kings of afresh. Instead of State being the voice of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion. To me voice of people is the voice of God “Jatra jiba tatra shiva.” The people are the manifestation of God.
In my conception of State where people of different religion live, there is no place for religion in the State. Its position must be neutral: no bias for any religion. If necessary, it should help all the religions equally. No question of concession or tolerance to any religion. It smacks of inferiority complex. The State must respect all religions no smiling face for one and askance look to the other. The State religion is a dangerous principle. Previous instances are sufficient warn us not to repeat the blunder. We know people were burnt alive in the name of religion. Therefore, my conception is that the sovereignty must rest with the people and not with anybody else.
Then about the Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan. This Constituent Assembly was created by a Statute-Indian Independence Act-allotting one member for ten lakhs of people to be elected by the members of the Provincial Assemblies. The members were not elected by the people themselves. They are for the purpose of framing a constitution. They have the legal right to do so but they cannot say that they are the representatives of the people. They are merely a Statutory Body.
Then I come to the fourth paragraph:
“Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed”.
Of course, they are beautiful words: Democracy, freedom, equality, everything. Now about this portion I had some discussion with some Maulanas from the Punjab. What they told me must be from their religious books. I shall repeat here. If I commit any blunder, I wish to be corrected.
In this connection, you say “equal rights”, but at the same time with limitations as enunciated by Islam. Is there any equal right in an Islamic country? Was there any... An honorable Member: “There was in Islamic countries” It was not between Muslims and non-Muslims. We are now divided into Congress Party and Muslim League Party here for framing constitution and suppose after framing of this constitution we face election, and parties are formed on different alignment, there may not be Congress, there may not be Muslim League, because the Congress has fulfilled its mission of attaining independence and Muslim League has also got Pakistan. There may be parties of have and have-nots-and they are bound to be-and have-nots party may have a leader coming from non-Muslims. Will he be allowed to be the head of the administration of a Muslim State? It is not a fact that a non-Muslim cannot be head of the administration in a Muslim State? I discussed this question and I was told that he could not be allowed to be the head of the administration of a Muslim State. Then what is the use of all this? The question is whether there can be Juma Namaz in a country with a non-Muslim as its head. I am told that a country where a non-Muslim is the Head of the administration-as was, in India, the Britishers were the head of the administration-according to the interpretations of Muslim rules and I do not know much of them-Muslims cannot say their Juma Namaz. As an instance, I cite a case and I think, the Honorable President also knows about it-in the District of Faridpur, Dudu Mea's party. They do not say Juma Namaz. His grandson, Pir Badshah Mea, told me that “in a country where the head is a non-Muslim, there cannot be Juma Namaz". Therefore, the words “equal rights as enunciated by Islam” aery-I do not use any other word-a camouflage. It is only a hoax to us, the non-Muslims.
There cannot be equal rights as enunciated by Islam. If the State is formed without any mandate of the religion, anybody whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist who can get votes can become its head, as such there would be difficulty if we accept this Resolution as it is. It cuts at the root of equal rights. I read out a portion of a book-it is not my book, it is not a Congress book, it is a Jamat-i-Islam publication from Lahore and it was handed over to me. I read a few lines from this book-Page 30:
“The preceding statement makes it quite clear that Islam is not democracy; for democracy is the name given to that particular form of Government in which sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, in which legislation depends both in its form and content on the force and direction of public opinion and laws are modified and altered, to correspond to changes in that opinion. If a particular legislation is desired by the mass of people steps have to be taken to place it on the Statute Book if the people dislike any law and demand its removal, it is forthwith expunged and ceases to have any validity. There is no such thing in Islam which, therefore, cannot be called democracy in this sense of the term".
My friend, the Honorable Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, the other day said, ‘What is in the name? I also say, what is in the name? Name may be given to mislead people but it will smell theocracy.
The Honorable Sardar Abdur Rab Khan Nishtar (West Punjab:Muslim): Do you know what treatment was meted out to this man by the Government? He is in jail.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: That is a different matter. Further he goes on:
"A more apt name for it would be the kingdom of God which is described in English as 'theocracy'."
I do not know much of your theocracy or Surma. But he told me many things about Islam.
And then you will also find this:
"No law can be changed unless the injunction is to be found in Gods shariat. Laws are changed by the consensus of opinion amongst the Muslims."
So, if any law is to be changed, it is to be changed by the vote of the Muslims only. Where are we then? We are not Muslims. There are, I find, many safeguards in the Resolution. I do not attach much importance to them words are there but there is no law which will allow them to be put into practice. That is the limitation. If the non-Muslims cannot vote, then what is the good of our coming here for framing the constitution? Even if we have the right to vote for legislation but if some non-Muslim wants to be the President of the State, he will not be able to do so. If we want to elect somebody who is a non-Muslim, he cannot be elected by us to be a member of the legislature. We may vote, but we can vote for Mr. Nishtar only and not for Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopdhyaya, who is a non-Muslim. I know you can pass this Resolution because you are in the majority and I know the tyranny of the majority. But we cannot be a consenting Party to it; we must oppose it in order to safeguard our interests and not to commit suicide by accepting this Resolution. If that is so, what is the position of non-Muslims in a Muslim State? They will play the part of the second fiddle-the drawers of water and hewers of wood. Can you expect any self-respecting man will accept that position and remain contented? If the present Resolution is adopted, the non-Muslims will be reduced to that condition excepting what they may get out of concession or pity from their superior neighbors. Is it equality of rights? Is it wrong if we say that the non-Muslims will be in the position of Plebeians? There may not be patricians and plebeians in the Muslim community, but the question is between the Muslims and non-Muslims.
[Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya.]
The much about this Resolution. Now, Dr. Qureshi has attributed fear complex to the non-Muslims and has found a new dictum of behavior for the minority. He has given a warning to the non-Muslims and has asked them to discard fear and behave well. What does our conduct show? We are not afraid of anybody. We, the Congress people, were not afraid of anybody or any power. We are still living in Eastern Pakistan and we are not running away. We are telling our brothers not to leave Eastern Pakistan and not to give up one inch of land. The position in the Western Pakistan is different. There the non-Muslims have left. But we are determined to stay on. As for behavior, it depends upon the majority community by their behavior to get the Confidence of the minority people. The minority people cannot create by their conduct confidence in the majority. The majority people should behave in such a way that the minority people may not be afraid of them and may not suspect them....
Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi: On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I never said, or implied in my speech that my friends on the opposite side were suffering from the fear of the seen. Unfortunately, they have been suffering from the fear of the unknown and my point was that the Objectives. Resolution does not embody any principle which might make them afraid, I know that my friends are very brave and they would certainly not run away and I also know.....
Mr. President: This much will do for your explanation.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: It goes without saying that by introducing the religious question, the differences between the majority and the minority are being perpetuated, for how long, nobody knows. And. as apprehended by us, the difficulty of interpretation has already arisen. The accepted principle is that the majority, by their fail treatment, must create confidence in the minority. Whereas the Honorable Mover of the Resolution promises respect, in place of charity or sufferance for the minority community, the Deputy Minister, Dr. Qureshi, advises the minority to win the good-will of the majority by their behavior. In the House of the Legislature also we find that, while the Prime Minister keeps perfectly to his dictum, others cannot brook that the Opposition should function in the spirit of opposition. The demand is that the Opposition should remain submissive. That is Dr. Qureshi's way of thinking. The minorities must be grateful for all the benevolence they get and must never complain for the malevolence that may also be dealt out to them. That is his solution of the minority problem.
Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi: Sir, I again rise on a point of personal explanation. I never said that. My words are being twisted. What I said was this that the best guarantee of a minority's rights is the good-will of the majority and those words cannot be twisted into the way my friend has been twisting them.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: My esteemed friend, Mr. Nishtar, speaks that there is difference of outlook between the two parties. It is true that before the division of India into two States, India and Pakistan, we opposed the division on the ground that the people of India consisted of one nation, and the Muslim League supported the division on two-nation theory, the Muslims and the non-Muslims. There was this fundamental difference in our outlook and in our angle of vision. India was divided without the division of the population. So, in both the States there are Muslims and non-Muslims no exchange of population and even no exchange of population under contemplation. We, the non-Muslims of Pakistan, have decided to remaining Pakistan, as the loyal citizens of Pakistan. Of course, some non-Muslims from East Bengal and practically the majority of non-Muslims from West Pakistan left the place. We call ourselves the nationals of Pakistan and style ourselves as Pakistanis. But this Resolution cuts at the root of it and Mr. Nishtar's speech makes it clear. We, the Congress people, still stick to our onenation theory and we believe that the people of Pakistan, Muslims and non-Muslims, consist of one nation and they are all Pakistanis. Now, if it is said that the population of Pakistan consists of two nations, the Muslims who form the majority party and the non-Muslims who form the minority party, how are they to be described? No where in the world nationality is divided on the score of religion? Even in Muslim countries there are people of different religions. They, do not call themselves a majority or minority party. They call themselves as members of one nation, though professing different religions. If the Muslims call themselves Pakistanis, will the non-Muslims call themselves non-Pakistanis? What will they call themselves?
Some Honorable Members: Pakistanis.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: Will they both call- themselves Pakistanis? Then how will the people, know who is Muslim and who is Non-Muslim? I say, give up this division of the people into Muslims and non-Muslims and let us call ourselves new nation. Let us call ourselves one, people of Pakistan. Otherwise, if you pall me non-Muslim and call yourselves Muslim the difficulty will be if I call myself Pakistani they will say you are a Muslim. That happened when I had been to Europe. I went there as a delegate of Pakistan. When I said “I am a delegate of Pakistan” they thought I was a 'Muslim. They said “But you are a Muslim”. I said, “No, I am a Hindu”. A Hindu cannot remain in Pakistan that was their attitude. They said: “You cannot call yourself a Pakistani". Then I explained everything and told them that there are Hindus and as well as Muslims and that we are all Pakistanis. That is the position. Therefore, what am I to call myself? I want an answer to that. I want a decision on this point from my esteemed friend, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan.
I request my Honorable friend, Mr. Nishtar, to forget this outlook, this angle of vision. Let us form ourselves as members of one nation. Let us eliminate the complexes of majority and minority. Let us treat citizens of Pakistan members of one family and frame such a constitution as may not break this tie so that all communities may stand shoulder to shoulder on equal footing in time of need and danger. I do not consider myself as a member of the minority community. I consider myself as one of seven crores of Pakistanis. Let me have to retain that privilege.
I have stated about this Resolution. Now what will be the result of this Resolution? I sadly remind myself of the great words of the Quaid-i-Azam' that in state affairs the Hindu will cease to be a Hindu: the Muslim shall cease to be a Muslim. But alas, so soon after his demise what you do is that you virtually declare a State religion! You are determined to create a Herrenvok. It was perhaps bound to be so, when unlike the Quaidi-Azam-with whom I was privileged to be associated for a great many years in the Indian National Congress-you felt your incapacity to separate politics from religion, which the modern world so universally does. You could not get over the old world way of thinking. What I hear in this Resolution is not the voice of the great creator of Pakistan-the Quaidi-Aazm (may his soul rest in peace), nor even that offer Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but of the Ulemas of the land.
When I came back to my part of the country after several months absence in Europe, the thing that I saw there depressed me. A great change for, the worse has come over the land. I noticed that change this side also. I told His Excellency Khwaja Nazimuddin of it. I told the Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan about it and now that spirit of reaction has overwhelmed this House also. This Resolution in its present form epitomizes that spirit of reaction. That spirit will not remain confined to the precincts of this House. It will send its waves to the countryside as well. I am quite upset. I have been passing sleepless nights pondering what shall I now tell my people whom I have so long been advising to stick to the land of their birth? They are passing a state of uncertainty, which is better seen and felt than imagined from this House. The officers have opted out, the influential people have left, the economic conditions are appalling, starvation is wides-spread. women are going naked, and people are sinking without trade, without Occupation. The administration is ruthlessly reactionary; a steam-roller has been set in motion against the culture, language and script of the people. And on the top of this all, by this Resolution you condemn them to a perpetual state of inferiority. A thick curtain is drawn against all rays of hope, all prospect of an honorable life.
After this what advice shall I tender? What heart can I have to persuade the people to maintain a stout heart? But I feel it is useless bewailing before you, it is useless reasoning with you. You show yourselves incapable of humility that either victory or religion ought to generate. You then go your way, I have best wishes for you. I am an old man not very far from my eaternal rest. Personally I am capable of forgetting all injuries. I bear you no ill will. I wish you saw reason. Even as it is, may no evil come your way. May you prosper, may the newly-born State of Pakistan be great and get its proper place in the comity of nations. (Applause.)
The Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan (East Bengal: Muslim): I have listened to the speech of my Honorable friend, the Leader of the Congress Party, with great care. I assure him that whatever I say will be with full sense of responsibility and in all sincerity.......
Sir, my Honorable friend, the Leader of the Congress Party, had a visit from some Ulemas. He did not tell us whether it was that they had come in search of knowledge to him or whether he had gone in search of knowledge to them. But I presume that this visit was paid by certain Ulemas according to him from Lahore on their own initiative and they left certain literature with him, which seems to have upset my Honorable friend. who is very seldom upset. I can quite understand why this visit and why this handing over of this literature was done. There are some people here who are out to disrupt and destroy Pakistan and these so-called Ulemas who have come to you, they have come with that particular mission of creating doubts in your mind regarding the bonafide as of the Mussalmans of Pakistan. Do not for God's sake lend your ear to such mischievous propaganda. I want to say and give a warning to this element, which is out to disrupt Pakistan that we shall not brook it any longer. They have misrepresented the whole ideology of Islam to you. They are in fact enemies of Islam while posing as friends and supporters of Islam.
Sir, my honorable friend said that according to these people, the Muslims will not offer their Juma Prayers if there was a non-Muslim as the head of the State. Well, Sir, till yesterday-when I say yesterday I am only talking figuratively-we had non-Muslim rulers here. Were not the Muslims offering prayers? Were they not offering Juma Prayers? Can you say they have never offered Juma Prayers in this country? How can, then, anybody come to you and how easily you get taken in by a statement of this kind?
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: They did not tell me. I mentioned Dudu Mea's party whose grandson is Pir Badshah Mea.
The Honourable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan: Supposing there are some maniaces in this country or amongst the Mussalmans, are you going to be guided by what they say or are you going to be guided by what a vast majority Mussalmans believe in? If my friend wants that we should succeed in persuading every Mussalman in Pakistan to think in the same way on every matter. Well that is a task which is not possible for any organization or leader of any people to do.
Sir, my Honorable friend said that you have talked of equality and again he has been misled by these so-called Ulemas because according to these people there can tie no equality. I am really surprised that a man of his ripe experience should really be taken is so easily and should put it all his belief in what these two people have told him and not believe in what we and men like Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Osmani have been telling him about Islam. Sir, as I said when you have made up your mind it is very difficult to try and convince you.
Sir, my friend said that these people told him that in an Islamic State that means a State which is established in accordance with this Resolution no non-Muslim can be the head of the administration. This is absolutely wrong. A non-Muslim can be the head of administration under a constitutional government with limited authority that is given under the constitution to a person or an institution in that particular State. So here again these people have indeed misled him.
Sir, my Honorable friend's last peroration I very much regret. But for the fact that I have great regard for him and a belief that whatever he says is out of sincerity I would have said it was a most mischievous statement to have been made by any responsible citizen of Pakistan. He has interpreted the Resolution in a most undesirable manner. He has by his remarks told the non-Muslims here that if this Resolution is passed there is no place for them in Pakistan. This, Sir, as I said is not the type of statement that one would expect from one who professes to be a true and real Pakistani, Sir let me tell my Honorable friend that the greatest guarantee that the non-Muslims can have, they will get only through this Resolution and through no other manner and therefore I would request him not to be misled by interested persons and do not think, for a moment that this Resolution is really intended, or will really result. In driving out the non-Muslims from Pakistan or reducing them to the position of-as he described-hewers of wood and drawers of water. In real Islamic society let me tell you, Mr. President, there are no classes of hewers of wood and drawers of water. The humblest can rise to the highest position. Of Course, I can quite understand his believing it because my friend has been brought up in a society where there are condemned people who are born as hewers of wood and drawers of water and remain as such. But let me tell him that there is no such thing in Islamic society or in Islam. When we say social justice we mean social justice. And when we say democracy-as a matter of fact the propounded some other theory that he had learned from the so-called Ulemas that there is no such thing as democracy in Islam-we mean democracy in the real sense and nothing else. I think, Sir, even the bitterest opponents of Islam have never made such an astounding statement. As a matter of fact it has been recognized by non-Muslims throughout the world that Islam is the only society where there is real democracy.
Sir, there was another astounding statement that he made and for this statement he did not get his inspiration from the Ulemas from Lahore, but I do not know from where he got it. He said, “Your Resolution is a misstatement of facts, because you say here that this Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves: This Constituent Assembly does not represent the people of Pakistan". Then, Sir, whom does this Constituent Assembly represent? If it does not. represent the people of Pakistan, then why are my friends wasting their time here and sitting in this Constituent Assembly? Then what are we talking about? Either this Constituent Assembly represents. The people of Pakistan or it does not? If It does not represent the people of Pakistan, then this Constituent Assembly has no right to frame any constitution for the people of Pakistan. Is that what he expects me to accept? Sir, I do not know why he made that statement
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya: I gave them.
The Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan: He said he gave those reasons. They may be in his mind, but they were never uttered.
Sir, my Honorable friend said that Muslim League has fulfilled its mission because it has achieved Pakistan. I submit, Mr. President, that the Muslim League has only fulfilled half of its mission. The other half of its mission is to convert Pakistan into a laboratory where we could experiment upon the principles of Islam to enable us to make a contribution to the peace and progress of mankind. Therefore, he is not right when he says that the Muslim League has completed its mission.
Sir, my Honorable friend said: “Are the Pakistani nationals only Hindu or Muslims?” I say we are both. There are Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan and everyone of us is a national of Pakistan. I do not see any contradiction in this statement. You can be a national of a State, with equal rights, equal privileges and equal responsibilities and yet remain Muslims and Hindus. I really do not see, Mr. President, what is the difficulty about that. My Honorable friend said that when he went to England and Europe last year, they would not believe that there was any non-Muslim in Pakistan and they all took him to be a Muslim. It is not the fault of Pakistan, Mr. President; it is the fault of the Honorable Member's erstwhile friends and co-workers! The propaganda that they have been carrying on throughout the world against Pakistan with regard to this very particular matter is responsible for this misunderstanding, not that the Muslims have ever said that there are no non-Muslims in Pakistan or that we do not want that there should be no non-Muslims in Pakistan. As a matter of fact, let me tell you, Mr. President, what we have provided here for minorities I only with that the sister Dominion of India had provided similar concessions and similar safeguards for the minorities in India. Here, we are guaranteeing you your religious freedom, advancement of your culture, sanctity of your personal laws and equal opportunities, equality in the eye of law. What have they done on the other side? No question of culture. As a matter of fact, the personal law of Muslims is not to be recognized in India. That is the position. Does my friend really want me to create a state in Pakistan like what his erstwhile friends are doing in India? Does he really want me to create a State like that? I shall not, Mr. President. I want a State where every community will be free to live its own life and not be forced to act, as the majority wants to it to act.
Sir, my Honorable friend said towards the end of his speech which I call- I think e will pardon me, I am not used to using strong language, but I think on this occasion I must say-a mischievous portion of his speech. He said that in Bengal it is communal rule. The position of non-Muslims is pitiable. Who is responsible for this communal rule, may I ask him? Did we turn out the non-Muslim Officers from our administration? Was it not due to the fact that it was a part of the plen to destroy Pakistan administratively and all the non-Muslims were made to opt for India and not serve Pakistan? Is it my fault today if there are no non-Muslims in the administration of Pakistan? My friend knows what the position in Bengal was and, therefore, I think that it was not really right for him to have made this a grievance against the Pakistan Government or the Muslims of Pakistan. I hope, in due course of time, there will be non-Muslims in the services of Pakistan, because we are leaving the doors open for everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, to enter Pakistan services.........
Mr. President: First I shall put the amendments. The question is:
“That the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe...."and ending with the words....is a sacred trust’ be omitted.”
The House then divided.
AYES-10
Mr. Prem Hari Barma
Prof. Raj Kumar Chakraverty
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya
Mr. Akshay Kumar Dass
Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Datta
Mr. Jnanendra Chandra Majumdar
Mr. Birat Chandra Mandal
Mr.Bhabesh Chandra Nandy
Mr. Dhananjoy Roy
Mr. Harendra Kumar Sur
NOES-21
Mr. A.M.A. Hamid
Maulana Mohd. Abdullah-el-Baqui
Mr. Abul Kasem Khan
Maulana Mohd. Akram Khan
The Hon’ble Mr. Fazlur Rahman
Prof. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi
The Hon’ble Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan
Dr. Mahmud Husain
Mr. Nur Ahmed
Mr. Serajul Islam
Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Osmani
The motion was negatived.
The Hon’ble Khwaja Shahabuddin
Begum Saista Suhrawardy Ikramullah
Mr.Nazir Ahmed Khan
Sheikh Keramat Ali
Dr. Omar Hayat Malik
Begum Jahan Ara Shah Nawaz
The Hon’ble Sir Muhd. Zafrullah Khan
The Hon’ble Sarder Abdur Rab Khan
Nishtar
Khan Sarder Bahadur Khan
The Hon’ble Pirzada Abdus Sattar
Abdur Rahman
Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Osmani
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe....” for the words ‘State of Pakistan through its people’ the words ‘people of Pakistan’ be substituted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe....’ the words ‘within the limits prescribed by Him’ be omitted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words. ‘This Constituent Assembly’ after the word ‘independent’ the word democratic’ be inserted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That after the paragraph beginning with the words This Constituent Assembly...” the following new paragraphs be inserted:
‘Where in the National Sovereignty belongs to the people of Pakistan;
Wherein the principle of the State is Government of the people, for the people, and by the people’.
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is: “That for the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Where in the State shall exercise..... the following paragraph be substituted:—
‘Wherein the elected representatives of the people-in whom shall be centered and to whom shall belong legislative as well as executive authority-shall exercise their powers through such persons as are by law authorized to do so. The elected representatives shall control acts of Government and may at any time divest it of all authority’.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Wherein the principles of democracy...” the words ‘as enunciated by Islam’ be omitted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Wherein the principles of democracy...” after the words ‘as enunciated by Islam’ the words and as based upon “eternal principles, be inserted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Where in the principles of democracy...after the words ‘as enunciated by Islam’ the words ‘and other religions’ be inserted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
6 p.m..
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Wherein the principles of democracy.............after he words ‘as enunciated by Islam’ the words ‘but not inconsistent with the Charter of the Fundamental Human Rights of the United Nations Organization’ be inserted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Wherein the Muslims shall be.”.. for the words ‘Muslims shall’ the words ‘Muslims and non-Muslims shall equally’ be substituted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words, ‘Wherein the Muslims shall be..............for the word ‘Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna the words ‘their respective religions’ be substituted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
"That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Wherein the Muslims shall be ....’after the words ‘Holy Quran and the Sunna’ the following be added:—
‘in perfect accord with non-Muslims residing in the State and in complete toleration of their culture and social and religious customs’.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: - The question is:
“That for the paragraph” beginning with the words ‘Wherein adequate provision shall be the made for the minorities’, the following paragraph be substituted:—
‘Wherein shall be secured the minorities, the freedom to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures and adequate provision shall be made for it.”
The motion was negatived:
Mr. President: The question is:
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph” beginning with the words ‘Wherein shall be guaranteed····’ after the word ‘guaranteed’ the words ‘and secured to all the people of Pakistan, be inserted’.”
The motion wag negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard ....’ for the words ‘and depressed classes the words ‘classes and Scheduled Castes’ be substituted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the paragraph beginning with the words ‘Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard,’ between the words ‘backward’ and ‘depressed classes’ the words ‘and laboring’ be inserted.”
The motion was negatived.
Mr. President: That finishes all the amendments. I now put the main Resolution. The question is that the following Resolution be adopted:
“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;
Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to God Almighty alone and the authority which he has delegated to the State of Pakistan throug its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;
This Constituent Assembly representing the people of Pakistan resolves to frame a constitution for the sovereign independent State of Pakistan;
Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;
Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, quality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed;
Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna;
Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;
Whereby the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and much other territories as may hereafter be included in or accede to Pakistan shall form a Federation wherein the units will be autonomous with such boundaries and limitations on their powers and authority as may be prescribed;
Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality;
Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes;
Wherein the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured;
Wherein the integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its ‘rights including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded;
So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honored place amongst the nations of the World and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.”
The motion was adopted.
- ↑ The motion refers to the Motion on Arms and Objects.