Preface to the second edition

to build up a healthy and clean political life in Pakistan.
One of the major problems with which Liaquat Ali Khan had to deal soon after the Quaid’s death related to the adjustment of modernist and traditional viewpoints about the future of Pakistan. This is a problem with which all Muslim states have had to deal and their solutions have differed \vidcly-from secularism ot Turkey to extreme traditionalism of Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan the problem assumed a sharp political shape on account of the activities of Maulana Maududi and Jamaat-i-Islami. Maulana Maududi, who was at one time the editor of Al-Jamiat, is a brilliant writer on religious subjects. Some years before the Partition he settled down at Pathankot in East Punjab, and started urging the establishment of Hakumat-i-Ilahia in the pages of his Tarjuman-ul-Quran. He took no part in the struggle for Pakistan and in fact he and his companions were generally critical of the Muslim League leadership. Massacres of East Punjab, however, forced him and his companions to seek asylum in Pakistan and he established his headquarters at Lahore. Here, he and his organisation started a campaign for replacement of the Pakistan Penal Code and other statutes in operation during the British period by Islamic Law and acceptance of the view that the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan or Muslim legislature had no right to frame any constitution or initiate any laws which were not provided for in the Quran, as interpreted by qualified ulama. He made the following four-fold demand from the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in an interview which he gave to a representative of the Dawn in April 194811 :
(1) Acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God (as against the sovereignty of the people in democracy);
(2) acceptance of the Shariat as the basis of the constitution ,
(3) amendment of anti-Islamic laws and an assurance that no law contrary to the Shariat will be enacted ; and
(4) the Pakistan Government to exercise its power within the limits of the Shariat.
In dealing with Maulana Maududi the Government of Pakistan-a League Government-did not allow itself to be influenced
Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 465
by his past attitude towards the Muslim League. In fact, shortly after Partition, Jamaat-i-Islami offered their assistance in looking after certain refugee camps and the Punjab Government gladly accepted this offer of co-operation. The Maulana was more than welcome at the Radio Pakistan-a State-controlled organisation -and he broadcast a number of talks from Lahore Radio Station.
Soon, however, it appeared that the extremism of the Maulana would involve him in a conflict with the Government. He, for example, advised Government servants against signing a pledge demanded by the West Punjab Government, until that Government became Is’amic. He also expressed the view that fighting in Kashmir, where a large number of Pathans had gone to the rescue of their Muslim brethren, was not Jehad, as Pakistan had treaties with India. This view was severely criticised in the press and action was taken, by the West Punjab Government, to detain the Maulana under Punjab Public Safety Act in October 1948. Shortly thereafter, the question of enunciating the principles under which Pakistan’s constitution should be framed came before the Constituent Assembly, and Liaquat Ali Khan made it clear that though his Government did not share Maulana Maududi’s views about the future of Pakistan, they were determined to give the people the constitution wanted by them. On 7 March 1949, Liaquat Ali Khan brought before the Constituent Assembly what has been known as the Objectives Resolution and delivered a long speech in explaining its provisions. In the course of the discussions that followed the Leader of the Congress Party in the Assembly stated that he had consulted ”some Lahore Ulama”i2 and had been informed that a non-Muslim could not hold an office of importance in an Islamic State. Liaquat Ali Khan corrected him and stated that this would not apply to the state which they were envisaging and issued a warning, on the floor of the house, to those Lahore ulama who were misleading the public.
The full text of-the Objectives Resolution was as follows :
Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone, and the authority which He has delegated to the

30

466 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

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 accord with the teaching and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna;
Wherein adequate provision shall be mad,e 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 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 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, see and air shall be safeguarded ;
So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honoured place amongst the nations of the world and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity.
The Objectives Resolution is a brief document, but its significance is realised if its background and the acute controversies it successfully resolved are taken into consideration. The basic
Liaquat AH Khan
[ 467
stand of the Jamaat-i-Islami which had carried on most active propaganda in favour of an Islamic State, but (curiously or characteristically?) had not joined the struggle for the establishment of Pakistan, was that sovereignty (including the law-making power) belongs to God alone and the legislature (or rather, the ulama) can only interpret what have been revealed as Divine Ordinances. This would have left no law-making power with the legislature, and completely diluted its authority. The Objectives Resolution attempted to reconcile the conflicting viewpoints by affirming that the ”sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone” but followed it up by referring to ”the sovereign independent State of Pakistan” and stipulated that the authority ”within the limits prescribed by Him” was to be exercised by the people of Pakistan. Limitations on the power of legislature were few. They related to the future alone, and excluded only those laws which were definitely ”repugnant to the Quran and Sunna.” This left a vast field, in fact the mam field, of modern legislative activity, to be operated in accordance with the traditions and requirements of the Muslim community and according to sound, healthy principles of Islamic law, under the sovereign authority of legislature.
One demand of the Jamaat-i-Islctmi v\.is that Pakistan should formally declare itself to be an Islamic State Ihe Objectives Resolution did not provide for this, but the only clause added in

1956 to the Objectives Resolution of 1949 and retained in the Preamble to the Constitution of 1962, laid down that ”Pakistan would be a democratic State based on Islamic principles of social justice.” This, also, is something different from the theocratic state, which is the basic goal of the Jamaat.

The other important demand on behalf of the group advocating an Islamic State was that the Muslims of Pakistan should be compelled to live in accordance with the teachings of the Quran and the Sunna. The relevant provision in the Objectives Resolution was that the ”Muslims of Pakistan should be enabled individually and collectively to order their lives in accordance with the teachings oi Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and the Sunna.” The significance of the omission of an expression

468 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

incorporating the idea of ”compulsion” and selection of the •word ”enabled” can be realised, if it is recalled that Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, the acknowledged leader of the Muslim theologians, was a member of the Sub-Committee which drafted the Objectives Resolution, and co-piloted it along with the Prime Minister, in the Constituent Assembly. The entire approach of the Objectives Resolution was that while Pakistan should be a progressive, modern state and not a theocratic, medieval government like the former Saudi Arabia or Yemen, yet every attempt should be made to translate the people’s dream of an Islamic social order into action. The Constitution of 1956 and following it the Constitution of 1962 maintained the same approach. The idea of ”compulsion” in the fields normally left out of the purview of a modern state was not incorporated but elaborate provision was made through directive principles not only for ”enabling” the people to order their lives in accordance with the Quran and the Sunna but also for their Islamic education and for propagation of Islamic values.
At least, some Western scholars have grasped the historic importance of the Objectives Resolution. For example, Professor •Grunebaum, after reproducing the Resolution in extenso (and referring to some provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan) remarks, ”It would seem to me that on the theoretical level at least, as good an integration of traditional and Western ideas has ”been reached in this document as one might reasonably expect,”1^ and later he adds that ”the attempted bridging of the gap between the Muslim tradition and the Western-inspired idea of the nation-state deserves the greatest attention.”14
If the balanced and comprehensive approach to the ideological problem which Liaquat AH Khan had been advocating succeeds and can be worked out in detail by scholars and thinkers, he would have rendered a great service not only to Pakistan but to many other Muslim countries which are faced with the same problem. Of course, this is not going to be easy. If it is to be achieved, Pakistan will have to produce another Iqbal-or at least somebody who, working on the foundations already laid by Shah Waliullah and Iqbal, can attempt a new synthesis. This may
Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 469
or may not be possible in the near future, but at any rate Liaquat Ali Khan deserves credit for having maintained a san<5 and balanced stand-in spite of criticism from those who do not fully realise the implications of Maulana Maududi’s original viewpoint.
Liaquat Ali Khan was, by all accounts, a great success as a Prime Minister, but two important factors which contributed to this deserve to be mentioned. One is the spirit and the quality displayed by the average Pakistani. Of course, the leaders and the Government have helped but the real explanation of Pakistan’s ability to deal successfully with her heart-breaking problems lay in the tenacity, fanatical devotion and self-sacrifice of the man in the street. Nobody was more conscious of this than Liaquat. While addressing the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, during his tour of the United States, he stated frankly:
What enabled Pakistan to tide over the post-Partition problems was neither experience nor skill-for we possessed little of either-but the sheer determination of the people and their intense patriotism. This continues to be our greatest asset and is. a very steadying factor in an uncertain part of the world.
The second important factor is the ability and patriotism displayed by some Government servants. When Pakistan came into being, the number of senior, trained and experienced Muslims in the services was very small. To some extent the gap was filled by employment of foreign personnel, but the brunt has been borne by the Pakistani officers. This was possible only because several amongst them did the work of two or three men and sacrificed all social pleasures, comforts and amenities to give Pakistan a chance. Of course, this was not true of all or perhaps even majority of Government servants, but the proportion of such officers had been substantial enough to enable Pakistan to tide over her initial handicaps. This aspect of the new state has been duly noticed by foreign observers. After a visit to Karachi, in

1949, A.D. Mani, Editor, Hitavada, wrote in Free Press Journal of Bombay, that in Pakistan ”the devotion of the services to the welfare of the State, as they conceive it, is far more pronounced” than in India. ”The services in Pakistan, by and large, are

470 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan
prepared to undergo any sacrifice, for the maintenance of the stability of the Pakistan State.”15
The tradition of criticising bureaucracy is so deep-rooted in this subcontinent that it is difficult for the civil servants to expect bouquets from their own press, but the role of services in making a success of ”a mutilated” Pakistan has been so distinguished that even the press in Pakistan cannot ignore it. In a leading article Morning News of Dacca wrote :
There is general public acknowledgment of the fact that since partition quite a number of the officers of the Pakistan Administrative and Police Service in East Pakistan have risen to unattainable heights in discharging loyally and efficiently their duties by the State and the people.16
Pakistan has been well served by her officers but- cannot Liaquat Ah Khan claim some credit for making a suitable selection of key-men? When the Quaid-i-Azam died and Liaquat stepped into his shoes, The Observer of London wrote about him:
. . .But most valuable to him [Liaquat Ali Khan] now is the experience he gained through 21 years of administration, with the insight into character and the practice in choosing men that this gave him.
Under Liaquat’s leadership, Pakistan was able to belie the forebodings of those who thought that with Jinnah’s death ”the house that Jinnah built” would collapse. He consolidated the foundations and began to build up the new edifice. With his charm, intelligence and good sense he impressed all those who came in contact with him and was able to raise the prestige of the country. In March 1950 he toured U.S.A. at the invitation of the government and favourably impressed those he met. Internationally, he was thought a worthy successor of the Quaid-i-Azam. It would, however, be idle to pretend that he possessed the Quaid’s authority. He maintained his position more as an arbitrator than as a leader, and met with one or two serious reverses. His dismissal of Mamdot Government displeased many who had faced and brought to knees the Unionist regime in 1947. The Governor-General Khwaja Nazim-ud-Din condemned the Punjab
Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 471
Government in strong language, echoing the thoughts and style of Sir Francis Mudie. The fact that Khan of Mamdot was ultimately found ”not guilty” of the charges against him under PRODA, strengthened the feeling that he had not received a fair deal, and even Liaquat found it necessary to curb the autocracy of the British Governor. He suggested the appointment of Advisers, in the absence of a Council of Ministers, and considering that after the resignation of the Congress ministers in 1939, even the British authorities had appointed Advisers to assist the provincial Governors, the step proposed by Liaquat was fully justified. Mudie, however, resisted and Liaquat allowed him to resign and leave.
The decision of Liaquat’s Government to accept the cease-fire in Kashmir as from 1 January 1949 has also been criticised. Maj.-General Fazal Muqeem Khan in his The Story of the Pakistan Army refers to ”the army’s horror” at the timing of the decision. He has pointed out in the Preface that the ”views expressed and comments made” in his book arc entirely his own, but there seems little doubt that this feeling was widespread. A fair judgment on this question cannot be passed till all relevant data are available and all considerations underlying this fateful decision are known-and after Liaquat’s death that may not be possible. It is certain that the announcement of the cease-fire was a source of keen disappointment to those heroic and resourceful army officers and personnel who had secured notable success and were on tb; eve of further victories in the area, but according to the information available Liaquat had to keep the overall picture in view. Apparently, he had been given to understand that if the Pakistani thrust continued, India would carry the war into the neighbouring plains which had been substantially denuded of troops to support the effort in Kashmir. The correct assessment of the situation can now only be a matter of speculation, but after the events of Septemper 1965 it is difficult to hold that Liaquat’s decision in December 1948 was necessarily wrong and not an act of a statesman and a true patriot.
A development which must have caused Liaquat great personal disappointment and which led to delay in the country’s progress

472 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

on the constitutional road was the successful resistance to the Interim Report of the Basic Principles Committee which he submitted to the Constituent Assembly in September 1950. There was such widespread opposition to these proposals that they had to be withdrawn. This was the low. ebb of Liaquat’s political career, but there is no doubt that he would have, in course of time, found a solution. Unluckily he was not spared long for the purpose ; on

16 October 1951, he fell a martyr to the bullet of an assassin. His death was a staggering blow to Pakistan, and the ship of the new state entered troubled waters, but by then its seaworthiness had

been established.
The extent of Liaquat’s-and his co-workers’-achievements may be measured by the observation of two responsible foreigners. Our first quotation is from O.M. Green’s review of Making of Pakistan by Richard Symonds. In the course of the review, Green observed that the creation and rapid consolidation of Pakistan was ”one of the greatest romances of history” and pointed out how Pakistan had belied the forebodings of those who thought that Pakistan would not prove viable or durable. He wrote :
No birth was ever more frowned upon by Cassandras than Pakistan’s. How triumphantly she has defeated the prophets of woe, creating out of nothingness a stable Government with balanced budget, favourable trade balance and foreign policy of its own, is now for the first time comprehensively told by Mr. Symonds.
Green’s review appeared in The Observer of London on

30 April 1950, i.e. a little more than a year before Liaquat’s death. The next quotation is from the pen of a distinguished American, David E. Lilienthal, a former Chairman of the worldfamous Tennesse Valley Authority. He wrote in the course of an article which was reproduced in The Hindu, Madras, on

26 August 1951, i.e. a few weeks before the sad end of Liaquat:
Pakistan is a country that is moving towards the kind of modern outlook that in a brief span of years transformed a past-ridden Turkey into a forward-looking nation, a bulwark of strength to the free world. Democracy and democratic ways
Liaquat All Khan
( 473
now have a great foothold in this new nation of Pakistan. Her people, with great courage, have surmounted amazing difficulties these past four years. She has survived a stupid economic war against her by her big neighbour India; has.made headway in the emancipation of women from their thirteenth-century status; is developing irrigation, agriculture and industry with an energy and practical approach that-is inspiring to see.
The Pakistanis as individuals are a delightful people, approachable, friendly, charming in manner and custom; their diplomatic representatives in the United States and at the UN are exceptionally able and attractive individuals. But war [with India over the Canal Waters] would reverse the whole trend in Pakistan, put a stop to development, put religious fanaticism and the reactionaries in the saddle.
In his study in Karachi I visited Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, a mild-mannered lawyer, a partition refugee from western United Provinces and East Punjab, very Western, in dress, appearance and speech. Liaqat never raised his voice, never spoke in bitterness. But his resolution was plain, and what he said, when he put the case of Pakistan, was as strong as words could make it.
The above remarks are of particular interest, not only for the personal references they contain to Pakistan’s first Prime Minister but also for showing that by the end of Liaquat’s regime, Pakistan had enough achievements to its credit to interest foreign statesmen in the advantages of its survival’and continued progress!
Notes
1. K.S.P. Menon, Many Worlds, p. 137.
2. Yad-i-Ayyam, p. 262.
3 Quoted in M. Rafiq Afzal. Introduction to Speeches of Quaid-i-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan (1941-51), p. v.
4. Ibid., p. vi.
5. The Statesman, 23 April 1950.
6. N. V. Gadgil, Government From Inside, p. 86.
7. Ibid., p. 87.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., p. 88.

474 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

11. Dawn, 6 April 1948.
12. The statement was universally taken to refer to ulama of Jamaati-Islami and this has not been contradicted either by the speaker or bv
the Jamaat.
13. G.E.V. Grunebauna, Modern Islam, p. 230
14. Ibid.
15. Free Press Journal, 19 September 1949.
16. Morning News, Dacca, 13 May 1950-
Appendix I
CULTURAL BASIS OF HINDU-MUSLIM SEPARATISM
ON pages 30 and 31 a references has been made to the beginning of Hindi-Urdu controversy in the seventh decade of the last century and an account given of Syed Ahmed Khan’s conversations with the Commissioner of Benares in 1867 as well as a translation of his letter, dated

29 April 1870, prophesying that the Hindu attempt to replace Urdu by Hindi would strike at the root of Hindu-Muslim unity. Dr Asoke Majumdar’s1 Advtnt of Independence provides important additional material regarding the cultural history of the period. As this book is not easily available in Pakistan, some of the relevant details are gi\cn below.

The data piovided by Dr Asoke Majumdar clearly indicates that the Hindus took the lead in Hindu-Muslim separatism. After referring to ”the beginning of the nationalist movement which -was essentially Hindu and Bengali in character,”2 he points out that the successors of Ram Mohan Roy ”were essentially Hindu religious or social reformers”. By 1867 the idea of Hindu-nationalism was finding expression in influential quarters. In that year, •”Rajnarain Bose (maternal grandfather of Sri Aurobindo) who started the idea of nationalism in Bengal” initiated ”the Hindumela, which met annually from 1867 to 1880, and for which Tagore wrote two charming songs. Inspired by the Hindu-mela, the ’National Society’ was founded in 1870 to promote unity and national feelings among the Hindus.”3 When objection was taken to the use of the word ”national” for a Hindu organisation, the National Paper, the organ of the Hindu-mela replied, ”We do -not understand why our correspondent takes exception to the Hindus [sic] who certainly form a nation by themselves, and as