Objective Resolution 1949

Objectives Resolution is one of the most important documents in the constitutional history of
Pakistan. It was passed by the first Constituent Assembly on 12th March 1949 under the
leadership of Liaquat Ali Khan. The Objectives Resolution is one of the most important and
illuminating documents in the constitutional history of Pakistan. It laid down the objectives on
which the future constitution of the country was to be based and it proved to be the foundational
stone of the constitutional development in Pakistan. The most significant thing was that it
contained the basic principles of both the Islamic political system and Western Democracy. Its
importance can be ascertained from the fact that it served as a preamble for the constitution of
1956, 1962, and 1973 and ultimately became part of the Constitution when the Eighth
Amendment in the Constitution of 1973 was passed in 1985.

Objective Resolution was presented in the Constituent Assembly by Liaquat Ali Khan on March
7, 1949, and was debated for five days by the members from both the treasury and opposition
benches. The resolution was ultimately passed on March 12. Following were the main features
of the Objectives Resolution:

 The sovereignty of the entire Universe belongs to Allah alone

 Authority should be delegated to the State through its people under the rules set by Allah
 The Constitution of Pakistan should be framed by the Constituent Assembly
 The state should exercise its powers through the chosen representatives
 Principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice, as inshore by
Islam should be followed
 Muslims shall live their lives according to the teaching of the Quran and Sunnah
 Minorities can freely profess and practice their religion.
 There should be a federal form of government with the maximum autonomy for the Units
 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 the law and public morality should be given to all the citizens
of the state.
 It would be the duty of the state to safeguard the interests of minorities, backward and
depressed classes.
 Independence of judiciary should be guaranteed
 The integrity of the territory and sovereignty of the country was to be safeguarded
 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.

Liaquat Ali Khan explained the context of the resolution in his speech delivered in the
Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949. He termed the passage of the Objectives Resolution
as “the most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the
achievement of independence.’. He said that we as Muslims believed that authority is vested in
Allah Almighty and should be exercised per the standards laid down in Islam. He added that this
preamble had made it clear that the authority would be exercised by the chosen persons; which
is the essence of democracy and it eliminates the dangers of theocracy.  It emphasized the
principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice and it says that these
should be part of the future constitution.
But when it was debated in the session of the Constituent Assembly, it was opposed and
criticized by minorities’ leaders. A non-Muslim, Prem Hari proposed that the motion should be
first circulated for evoking public opinion and should then be discussed in the house on April 30,
1949. He was supported by Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya, who proposed some amendments in
the resolution. To him, since the committee of Fundamental Rights had finalized their report,
there was no need for this resolution to recommend these rights. He added that the Objectives
Resolution was an amalgamation of religion and politics; hence it would create ambiguities with
relation to its application in the constitutional framework. He wanted time to study and
understand the Objectives Resolution.

While discussing the rights of religious minorities, Chandra Mandal opposed the resolution by
saying that ‘why ulemas are insisting on this principle of Islam whereas India has Pandits but
they did not demand things like that. Individuals do have a religion but the state had not. So we
think it a great deviation in our beloved Pakistan.’ Kumar Datta opposed it by saying that ‘if this
resolution came in the life of Jinnah it would not have come in its present form. Let us not do
anything which leads our generation to blind destiny.’ Other Hindu members also proposed
some amendments in the resolution and recommended that some words like ‘…sacred trust”,
“…within the limits prescribed by Him”, and “… as enunciated by Islam” should be omitted.
Some new words should be inserted like “as prescribed by Islam and other religions”, and
“National sovereignty belongs to the people of Pakistan”, etc.

Mian Muhammad Iftikharuddin was the only Muslim member in the house who opposed the
resolution. To him the resolution was vague and many words used in it do not mean anything.
He further suggested that such a resolution should not only be the product of Muslim League
members sitting in the assembly alone. Rather it was supposed to be the voice of seventy
million people of Pakistan.

On the other hand Objectives Resolution was strongly supported by Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain
Qureshi, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Sardar Abdurrab Nishter, Noor Ahmad, Begam
Shaista, Muhammad Hussain, and others. To counter the allegations they argued that Islam
governs not only our relations with God but also the activities of the believers in other spheres of
life as Islam is a complete code of life.

After a great debate finally, the resolution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March
12, 1949. Liaquat Ali Khan assured the minorities that they will get all the fundamental rights in
Pakistan once the constitution based on the Objectives Resolution will be enforced. However,
this resolution created a division on the communal lines as the Muslim members except for Mian
Iftikharuddin voted in favor of it and the non-Muslim opposed it. It created a suspicion in the
mind of minorities against the majority. Since the Resolution has yet not been implemented in
Pakistan in the true spirit, the doubts in the minds of the minorities still exist.

The Objective Resolution 1949: Critically Analyzed Causes and Consequences

The first step towards the framing of Constitution was taken by Constituent Assembly in March

1949 when it passed a Resolution on the “Aims and Objectives of the Constitution”, popularly
known as the Objective Resolution. It laid the foundation of the Constitution and indicated the

broad outlines of its structure. It was described as the most important occasion in the life of

Pakistan. The Resolution was moved by Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and the leading

members of its cabinet on March 7, 1940 in the Assembly. Out of 75 members of the assembly, 21

voted for it opposition participated in debate but All debates and the amendments proposed by

minority members were rejected.

Ultimately, On March 12, 1949, Resolution moved by Liaquat Ali Khan, was adopted by the

Constituent Assembly.

The text of the Resolution as passed by Constituent Assembly was:

Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah 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 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, equality, 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 accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as

set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah;

Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to [freely] profess

and practice their religions and develop their cultures;

Wherein the territories now included in or in accession with Pakistan and such

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 provisions 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 includ-ing 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.

Liaquat Ali Khan explained the context of the resolution in his speech delivered in the

Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949. He termed the passage of the Objectives Resolution as

“the most important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the

achievement of independence.’. He said that we as Muslim believed that authority vested in Allah

Almighty and it should be exercised in accordance with the standards laid down in Islam. He

added that this preamble had made it clear that the authority would be exercised by the chosen

persons; which is the essence of democracy and it eliminates the dangers of theocracy. It

emphasized on the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance, and social justice and it

says that these should be part of future constitution.

But when it was debated in the session of the Constituent Assembly, it was opposed and criticized

by minorities’ leaders. A non Muslim, Prem Hari proposed that the motion should be first

circulated for evoking public opinion and should then be discussed in the house on April 30,

1949. He was supported by Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya, who proposed some amendments

in the resolution. To him, since the committee of Fundamental Rights had finalized their report,

there was no need for this resolution to recommend these rights. He added that the Objectives

Resolution was amalgamation of religion and politics; hence it would create ambiguities with

relation to its application in constitutional framework. He wanted time to study and understand

the Objectives Resolution.

Bhupendra Kumar Datta, a member of PNC from East Pakistan, proposed that the first

paragraph beginning with the words “Whereas sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to

Allah Almighty alone…” and ending with the words “limits prescribed by Him is a sacred
trust…” of the Resolution must be omitted. He pointed out that ‘the relations between a state and

its citizens have been… the subjects of politics’ and ‘the relations between man and God come

within the sphere of religion’. ‘Politics comes within the sphere of reason, while religion within

that of faith. If religion and politics are intermingled then there is a risk of subjecting religion to

criticism, which will rightly be presented as sacrilegious; and it would also cripple reason and

curb criticism as far as the state policies are concerned..Datta also warned that this resolution

was prone to be misused by a political adventurer who might find a justification for his ambitions

in the clause that referred to the delegation of the Almighty’s authority to the state through its

people. He could declare himself as Ruler of Pakistan appointed by his Maker’.He also pointed

out another potentially dangerous implication of The Role of Opposition in Constitution-Making

149 the Resolution in that ‘the limits’ prescribed by the Almighty would remain ‘subject to

interpretations and… liable to variations, liberal or rigid, from time to time by different

authorities and specialists. Taking part in the debate on the same paragraph,

Chandra Chattopadyaya, a member of PNC from East Pakistan, expressed the same fears

that: This part of the Resolution ought to be deleted. All powers rest with the people and they

exercise their power through the agency of the state. The state is merely their spokesman. The

Resolution makes the state the sole authority received from God Almighty through the

instrumentality of people. 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. What are those limits, who will interpret them? In case of difference who will interpret?

One day a Louis XIV may come and say, “I am the state, appointed by the Almighty” and thus

paving the way for the advent of Divine Right of Kings afresh. Instead of the state being the voice

of the people, it has been made an adjunct of religion.

Bhupendra Kumar Datta proposed that in the paragraph ‘wherein the principles of democracy,

freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam shall be fully
observed’, the words ‘as enunciated by Islam’ should be omitted. He explained that this clause

has condemned minorities ‘for ever to an inferior status and prevented.

Prem Hari Barma, a member of the PNC from East Pakistan, also supported the above

amendment by arguing that it would ‘cover a much wider range of the principles of democracy,

freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice. But with the retention of these words, the

paragraph would cover only those principles of democracy, freedom, tolerance, equality and

social justice which have been enunciated by Islam with the result that many of the universally

accepted principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice would be left

out’.

He proposed that if those words were retained, then after the words ‘enunciated by Islam’, the

words ‘and other religions’ be inserted. He proposed that in addition to the ‘principles enunciated

by Islam’, the principles enunciated by other religions should also be fully observed because

‘there were a considerable number of non-Muslims in the state of Pakistan; it would certainly be

a fatal policy to base the constitution on the principles of Islam only and thereby create

misconception and misapprehension in the minds of the people of other religions’.

Prem Har Barma moved two amendments in the fifth paragraph ‘wherein the Muslims shall

be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accord with the

teaching and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah’. He proposed

that for the words ‘Muslims shall’, the words ‘Muslims and non-Muslims shall equally’ be

substituted ‘and for the words ‘Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah’, the

words ‘their respective religions’ be substituted.

He argued that these amendments will not minimize the importance of teachings and

requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunnah and the non-Muslims will
also be able to order their lives in accord with the teachings and requirements of their respective

religions.

Chandra Chattopadyaya, the leader of the PNC, referring to the Quaid-i-Azam’s declaration

made in the Assembly on August 11, 1947, said that it was a clear indication that Pakistan would

be based on ‘eternal principles of equality and democracy’.

Jinnah’s Speech August 11, 1947

It is also important to review the vision of the founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah about

the nature of state of Pakistan. After independence, in his presidential address to the Constituent

Assembly of Pakistan, he assured the people of Pakistan that:

You are free to go to your temples; you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of

worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed…that has

nothing to do with the business of the state...we are starting in the days when there is no

discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between

one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all

citizens and equal citizens of one state.... in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and

Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith

of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State. The founder of the state

provided the guiding principle in the framing of the Constitution.

So, the thrust of the Objectives Resolution contradicts the vision of Jinnah as mentioned above.

The vision of Jinnah about Pakistan was very clear and straight forward in which state was not

mingled with religion.

Kumar Datta opposed the Resolution by saying that ‘if this resolution came in life of Jinnah it

would not have come in its present form. Let us not do anything which lead our generation to

blind destiny.

Mian Muhammad Iftikharuddin was the only Muslim member in the house who opposed the

resolution. To him the resolution was vague and many words used in it do not mean anything. He

further suggested that such a resolution should not only be the product of Muslim League

members sitting in the assembly alone. Rather it was supposed to be the voice of seventy million

people of Pakistan.

In response to all above arguments Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the president of JUI,

referred to a letter of Quaid-i-Azam to Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif, in November 1945, in which he

assured him that ‘it is needless to emphasize that the Constituent Assembly which would be

predominantly Muslim in its composition would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not

inconsistent with the Shariat laws and the Muslims will no longer be obliged to abide by un-

Islamic laws’

The Objectives Resolution was also strongly supported by Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi,

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Sardar Abdurrab Nishter, Noor Ahmad, Begam

Shaista, Muhammad Hussain and others. In order to counter the allegations they argued

that Islam governs not only our relations with God but also the activities of the believers in other

spheres of life as Islam is complete code of life.

After a great debate finally the resolution was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on March 12,

1949. All the amendments proposed by the non-Muslim opposition members were put to the vote

of the Constituent Assembly. The House rejected these amendments by twenty-one to ten votes.
All the PNC(Pakistan National Congress) members voted for the amendments. All Muslim-

League leaders (except Mian Iftikharuddin) voted against the amendments.

Liaquat Ali Khan assured the minorities that they will get all the fundamental rights in Pakistan

once the constitution based on the Objectives Resolution will be enforced.

However, this resolution created a division on the communal lines as the Muslim members

except for Mian Iftikharuddin voted in favor of it and the non-Muslims opposed it. It created a

suspicion in the mind of minorities against majority. Since, the Resolution has yet not been

implemented in Pakistan in the true spirit, the doubts in the minds of the minorities still exists.

After the adoption of Resolution, Hamid Khan remarks that it was ‘unfortunate that there

was a division on the Resolution along communal lines. The Resolution had sown

the seeds of suspicion, alienation and distrust among the minorities. He further

asserts that it might have been ‘more prudent to accept some of the amendments

proposed by the members representing the minorities in order to reach an

understanding with them so that the Resolution could have been passed by

consensus. Some of the proposed amendments were moderate and might have

been adopted in the larger national interest’.

The Objectives Resolution was included in the Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973 as a

preamble of the document but President Zia-ul-Haq made it integral part of the Constitution of

1973 through the Article 2(A) in the Eighth Amendment in 1985 through Presidential Order,

which is enforceable in a court of law. It has been included as an annexure, so that if the

constitution is abrogated, the Objectives Resolution is not automatically suspended, diluted, or

abrogated. The word ‘freely’ was deleted from the Resolution, which was meant for the

minorities.
The government’s policy of uniting people on the name of Islam failed because of its failure to

comprehend the plural sensitivities of Pakistani society and to address the problems of the people

for whom they had sacrificed and achieved a separate state. This created alienation among

certain people and provinces of Pakistan which ultimately lead to the disintegration of Pakistan

and separation of East Pakistan in 1971. The event proved that ideology alone cannot keep the

people united. Justice and fair opportunity is a must to keep a plural society together and save it

from disintegration.

To sum up, today Pakistan should revert back to the vision and aspirations of its founder

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who wanted a Islamic welfare state where all people live in peace and

harmony and where minorities, according to him, ‘will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan

without any distinction of caste or creed’.