Sris Chandra Chattopadhya on the Objectives Resolution, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan March12, 1949
This is a historic speech and a document that posterity will re-examine because of its ever increasing influence on the amalgamation of religion and politics in Pakistan. Seldom has one piece of legislation caused so much trepidation. Here is the text of the address of Sris Chandra Chattopadhya in Pakistan’s first Constitutent Assembly on 12 March 1949.
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 desireable 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 which 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 & Dr. Malik could establish his Pakistan in his own way and frame constitution accordingly. It is also true that the part of Pakistan in which Dr. Malik lives is denuded of non-Muslims. That is clear.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya (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 desireable 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 which 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 & Dr. Malik could establish his Pakistan in his own way and frame constitution accordingly. It is also true that the 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. Omar Hayat Malik: I never said that Pakistan was denuded of non-Muslims. My friend on the opposite has misunderstood me.
Mr. Sris Chandra Chattopadhya: 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 forefather, founder of my family, came to East Bengal thousand years back on the invitation of the then King of Bengal. I am 27th in descent 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, prosperous 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 East 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 out Muslim neighbours 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, nicely-worded 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 – Nemittamatrona, “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 Ahmed Osmani? In case of
difference, who will interpret? Surely they are not the people. One day a Louis
XIV may come and say “I am the State, anointed by the Almighty” 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 to 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 any body 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 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 Honourable 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 farming 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 haves and have-nots – and they are bound to be – and
have-nots party may have a leader coming form non-Muslims. Will he be allowed
to be the head of the administration of a Muslim
State 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
I read a few lines from
this book – Page 20.
“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 Honourable 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 Honourable 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 Chattopadhya: That is a different matter.
Further he goes on:
“A more apt name for it would be the Kingdom
of God
I do not know much of your theocracy or Sunna. 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 God’s shariat. Laws are changed by the concensus 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 farming the constitution? Even if we have the
right to vote for a 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
Chandra Chattopadhya, 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
That much about this Resolution. Now, Dr Qureshi has
attributed fear complex to the non-Muslims and has found a new dictum of
behaviour 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 any 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 behaviour it depends upon the majority community
by their behaviour to get the confidence of the minority people. The minority
people cannot create by their conduct confidence in the majority. They 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 Chattopadhya : 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 fair treatment, must create
confidence in the minority. Whereas the Honourable 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 behaviour. 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 Chattopadhya : 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 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 remain in Pakistan ,
as the loyal citizens of Pakistan .
Of course, some non-Muslims from East Bengal and
practically the majority of non-Muslim from West Pakistan
left the place. We all 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 one nation 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? Nowhere
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 Honourable Members : Pakistanis.
Mr Sris Chandra Chattopadhya : 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 one nation. Let us call ourselves one
people, people of Pakistan .
Otherwise, if you call 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 Honourable 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 as
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 Hindus 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 Herrenvolk. It was perhaps bound to be so, when unlike the Quaid-I-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 not the voice of
the great creator of Pakistan
– the Quaid-I-Azam (may his soul rest in peace), nor even that of the Prime
Minister of Pakistan, the Honourable 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 Khawaja Nazimuddin of it. I
told the Honourable 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 left
than imagined from this House. The officers have opted out, the influential
people have left, the economic conditions are appalling, starvation is
widespread, women are going naked, 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
prospects of an honourable 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 eternal rest. 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.)
Source: (now no longer functional) http://criticalppp.com/archives/5788
