The Objective Resolution, which was passed in 1949 by Liaquat Ali Khan’s government, laid down the foundation of ‘Islamic Democracy’, which became the political identity of the state. To analyze how the Objective Resolution shapes the constitution and, in turn, the national identity, it is important to start the debate on the arguments presented by both Liaquat Ali Khan and the objections presented by Mr. Kumar Datta to form a comprehensive understanding of its visions and flaws.

The main theme of the Objective Resolution was that sovereignty belongs to Allah and power to run Pakistan is given by Him to the people as signal of trust

The main theme of the Objective Resolution was that sovereignty belongs to Allah and power to run Pakistan is given by Him to the people as  signal of trust. In his speech before the assembly, he asserted that Allah had entrusted this right to govern to the people, and they would run this country through their chosen representatives. He explained that since the power rests in the hands of the public, therefore there can be no mistake in interpretation that the state will not be run on theocracy. Regarding the rights of minorities, he emphasized that they will be given full rights to practice their religion and culture. In his own words, “minorities will not endure sufferance, they will be respected and they will have full opportunity to develop.”

It is worth noting that democracy, freedom, equality, and social justice will be abided by under the Islamic teachings. This led to his point that “it will not be a secular state and religion will play a role in making an Islamic society.” In his concluding remarks, he expressed optimism, suggesting that this resolution is the path to national resurrection.

“A political adventurer might come forward and claim himself to be the ruler of Pakistan, anointed by his maker.”

Conversely, Mr. Datta began his rebuttal with a compelling point that politics belongs to the sphere of reason, and religion to that of faith. He elaborated that by passing this resolution, we are subjecting religion to criticism, and because religion is not open to critique, that means we curb criticism. He also introduced a hypothetical situation in which a person could step forward and proclaim divine authority. In his words, “A political adventurer might come forward and claim himself to be the ruler of Pakistan, anointed by his maker.” Furthermore, in addressing how religion is open to subjectivity, he raised two additional concerns. One was how “it may appear open to vagueness and generality unless it is interpreted specifically,” suggesting that religious scriptures are not absolute in their texts and can be interpreted differently by different individuals.

Regarding the global perception of this resolution, Mr. Datta warned that Pakistan would be distancing itself from the two dominant blocs of the time (the capitalist and the communist) and instead embracing experimental isolation. He viewed the concept of Islamic democracy as an untested model, removed it from the trajectory of global progress. Moreover, he warned that the preamble could serve as a powerful tool against the Constitution itself, stressing the risk of how this resolution might shape Pakistan’s image. In conclusion, he urged the assembly to reconsider, cautioning them against passing a resolution that future generations may struggle with, as it is tailored only to the context of the present and disregards the evolving nature of the world.

Dr. Qureshi stated that our reason is shaped by our faith, and our faith by our reason.

In response, two figures—Dr. Qureshi and Maulana Osmani—spoke in support of the resolution. Dr. Qureshi stated that our reason is shaped by our faith, and our faith by our reason. Therefore, he maintained that separating politics from religion is unrealistic. He noted that there is no concept of priesthood in Islam, and since the authority to govern rests solely with the people, there is nothing to fear. With regard to minorities, he pointed out that since the Middle Ages, minorities have been treated fairly by Islamic nations, and there is no reason to believe Pakistan would be any different. Subsequently, the Objective Resolution, which was presented in the house from 9th to 12th March 1949, was officially passed.

It established a democratic framework by affirming that leadership would be determined through public representation

Turning to the strengths of this resolution, firstly, it empowered the constituent assembly to draft and implement the Constitution of Pakistan. It established a democratic framework by affirming that leadership would be determined through public representation. Additionally, it codified the fundamental rights of the people.

The Objective Resolution also introduced a divide between Muslims and minorities. It contradicted the secular vision once expressed by Quaid-i-Azam, who famously remarked that religion is not the concern of the state

However, the Objective Resolution also introduced a divide between Muslims and minorities. It contradicted the secular vision once expressed by Quaid-i-Azam, who famously remarked that religion is not the concern of the state. This, as Mr. Datta had previously noted, would not have been acceptable in Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s time in its current form. It is evident that the resolution opened the door to the use of religion in legislation, which has left lasting effects, such as those seen during the Bhutto trial.

To conclude, the Objective Resolution established the Islamic identity of the state, later reflected in its official title as the Islamic Republic in Pakistan’s first constitution. By examining both sides of the debate, it is evident that while there are certain advantages, the resolution also presents significant drawbacks in defining Islamic democracy as Pakistan’s national identity.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.