Answer to the Question 1.

4:
The first compromise between the secularists and those seeking an Islamic
state came with the adoption of the Objectives Resolution in 1949, a set of
guiding principles that was to inform the country's constitution. This clearly
illustrates the fact that religion and politics were going to be practised side by
side in Pakistan.
The non-Muslim members of the constituent assembly vigorously opposed
it, and all of them voted against it. Birat Chandra Mandal said that
Jinnah had "unequivocally said that Pakistan will be a secular state."
On 9th March 1949 he said Individual might have religion, but the state has got
no religion.
In fact, there were fears that minorities had in their minds and they raised those
issues in the constituent assembly which were thoroughly debated by Muslim
members as well as by the non Muslim members. The major objection by the
Non-Muslims was that this OR was trying to mix the religion and politics that was
against the spirit of democracy and from their perspective that needed to be
separated. Actually, this is what happened in the Europe but that does not mean
that it should happen everywhere. In case of Islam you cannot really draw clear
lines between the two domains as describe by the European political thinkers
that the state and the religion and here in this case Pakistan and the Islam. This
objection was ruled out because the Muslims of this Sub Continent had defined
their identity with reference to Islam and there was a general census that the
state of Pakistan will have relationship with the parameters and principles which
they have used to defined their identity and then demand a separate state.
Bhupendra Kumar Datta also made an eloquent speech while opposing the
objectives resolution an extract is as follows :
Political institutions particularly modern democratic institutions . , grow and
progress by criticism, but as you bring in religion, or things as matters of faith,
you open the door ajar for resentment of criticism.
The other point raised by the non-Muslims was that they objected on the
Sovereignty of Allah and minorities rights, they were saying that the
sovereignty has shouldve been with the people, with God it may be too extract;
also saying it would promote inequality in the society. Again it was explained in
and outside the constituent assembly that this is the cardinal principle of Islam
and this does not mean that some individuals or some group would claim to
exercise that authority in the name of God. The framers of this resolution were
not talking about theocratic or religious state. The authority was to be exercised
through the representatives not through a particular class and the only limit was
that those representatives had to exercise that authority within the limits
prescribed by Allah in the Quran and the Sunnah and this job of exercising power
was a sacred responsibility and it was a trust. Otherwise people could elect
anybody and they could exercise that authority within certain parameters. They

were also of view that Shariah was not adequate for the modern time. They
feared that it would encourage the religious extremists to work for the
establishment of a theocratic state.Theocratic is basically mean where a
particular class of people can rule the state in the name of religion or the
priesthood or the religious scholars would rule and that kind of notion does not
exist in Islam. Therefore, when Liaquat Ali Khan and other people were talking
about the Islamic state or a state based on the Islamic principles, they were not
talking about a theocratic state. In fact, Liaquat Ali Khan and others who were in
the constituent assembly repeatedly said that Pakistan is not going to be a
theocratic state but it is going to be a modern democratic state which work
within the limits prescribed by God Almighty who is the ultimate source of
authority and ultimate source of power, power ultimately belongs to Allah not to
a particular class, section or group of people, who so ever exercises power is
exercising as a responsibility.
Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi, Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani, Sardar Abdur
Rab Khan Nishtar, Nazir Ahmad, Dr. Omar Hayat Malik, Nur Ahmad, Dr.
Muhammad Hussain, Begum Shaista, and Chaudhary Mohammad Zafarullah
Khan spoke in support of Resolution and opposed the ammendments moved in it.
Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani said that:
Islam has never accepted the view that religion is a private affair
between man and his creator and as such has no bearing upon the social or
political relations of human beings.
Chaudhary Muhammad Zafarullah Khan casted out the fear of minorities
and said:

The Objectives Resolution, which combines features of both Western and

Islamic democracy, is one of the most important documents in the constitutional
history of Pakistan. At the time it was passed, Liaquat Ali Khan called it the most
important occasion in the life of this country, next in importance only to the
achievement of independence.