The Objectives Resolution and the Misunderstood Role of Sir Ch. Muhammad Zafarulla Khan

By Dr Mirza Sultan Ahmad

zafrullah2
The resolution, ‘Aims and Objectives of the Constitution’, was presented in the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan on 7th March, 1949, and was approved after just a few days ‘discussion. All members of the Muslim League who were Muslims cast their vote in favor of the resolution. The respected members of the Assembly who belonged to the Hindu faith suggested a few amendments in the resolution which were rejected by a majority vote. Regardless, the Hindu members of the Assembly voted against the resolution. The resolution is known as, ‘The Objectives Resolution’ and now serves as the preamble of the Pakistan Constitution.

Zafrulah3
A lot has been said and written about the Objectives Resolution during the last decade. Much has been said about the speeches delivered on that occasion. Extracts from the debate that took place at that time have been quoted in numerous books and articles. However, as the reader did not find the full text of these speeches available to him in those books and articles, this lead to many wrong conclusions. Consequently, facts that were so important to know remained hidden from the sight of the people.
There is no doubt that any important treatise on law, constitution, or history is bound to be a topic of discussion. However, the tragedy is that at times factual misunderstandings begin to develop around an historical incident. This gradually results in the intelligentsia quoting that misinformation in their books, thus making that misinformation credible in the sight of the general public and forcing the masses to become oblivious to the actual facts.
Just a few months ago, a leading university in Pakistan held a seminar, which, like many others, I too had the honour to attend. Right in front of me in the next row was seated a famous Pakistani writer. Towards the end of the seminar, he too expressed his opinion on the subject. Among the things he said one was that Sir Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan did not offer the funeral of Qaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah behind Maulana Shabbir Usmani, because he had issued a fatwa against the Ahmadiyya Jama’at. However, when the Objectives Resolution was presented, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan referred to Maulana Shabbir Usmani as a great scholar of Islam, who had given his word that Pakistan would be a state whose foundations will be based on the principle of religious tolerance. How was it possible for Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan to acknowledge the authority of Maulana Shabbir Usmani on this occasion, whereas he refused to stand behind him to offer the funeral prayer of Qaid-e-Azam?
The writer raised other objections as well; however a suitable answer was given to him during discussion. However, as the actual text of the speech delivered by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan on that occasion was not available, I declined to comment on his words said during the seminar on this issue.
Another pertinent issue is that certain people have been claiming that the Objectives Resolution was presented in the Legislature Assembly of Pakistan by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, and that he was the brain behind this resolution. A debate has also ensued regarding what the members of the assembly said on the occasion about the liberty and freedom of expression in the new state.
Since those who make such claims regarding this historical issue also include people from the intelligentsia and other renowned writers, efforts were made to acquire the original draft of the sppech made by Chaudry Zafrullah Khan during this debat. Accordingly, National Archives Department was contacted and an authentic copy of the speech delivered by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan on 12th March, 1949, was duly obtained. The full draft of the speech can be seen on pages 65 – 72 of Volume 5, Number 5 of Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates.

To begin with, there are two things that must be explained:

  1. The Resolution was NOT presented by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, but rather it was presented by Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, then Prime Minister of Pakistan. (Constitutional Assembly of Pakistan Debates, 7th March, 1949, Volume 5, Number 1, Page 1)
  2. Nowhere in his speech did Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan say that the audience had among them a great scholar of Islam, namely, Shabbir Usmani. Nor did he mention him as an authority on the teachings of Islam. His name was mentioned only once during the speech. The exact wording of the speech recorded in Volume 5, Number 5, Page 70 is given hereunder:

 

‘I have no doubt, however, the constructive and statesman like pronouncement with which honorable mover introduced the resolution served to allay apprehensions on that score. Since then several speeches made in support of resolution, notable those of Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Dr Ishtiaq Hussain Qureishi, and my honorable colleague the minister of communication should have removed any lingering suspicion to which the minds of some of the honorable members may still have clung’.

Nowhere in this paragraph is any mention of any ‘great scholar of Islam’ or ‘an authority on the teachings of Islam’.
Some honorable Hindu members of the assembly had expressed their reservations about the resolution stating that it could be interpreted in the future in a manner as would harm the religious, social and political freedom of the minorities in Pakistan, and that such a situation may arise where they are not considered to be equal in status to the Muslim citizens of Pakistan. A number of Muslim League leaders including Liaqat Ali Khan then tried to allay the fears of the said Hindu members.
Quite a few speeches had already been made prior to the speech of Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, to which he had referred in the above-quoted paragraph. It is a parliamentary tradition that when a speaker speaks, he refers to the speeches made earlier.
I, therefore, sent all these facts to the writer I have spoken of in the beginning of this article. As a result, he denied some of his comments saying he had made those conclusions after reading the debate on the objectives resolution r. However, it is interesting to note that a recording of the seminar clearly showed that I was right about what he had actually said.
As mentioned earlier, the Hindu members of the Legislative Assembly had expressed their reservations about the Resolution saying it contained certain clauses as might hamper the due fulfillment of the rights of the minorities and their religious freedom in the country. A debate had then followed on such clauses in the Resolution; whereafter members of the Muslim League had made speeches to allay the fears of the Hindu members of the Assembly. The Muslim League members assured their Hindu brothers that no one’s rights will be tampered with in the name of faith or creed, and that all citizens of Pakistan will be equal in status. So far as the speech made by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan is concerned, speaking about religious freedom and tolerance he said that despite the fact that Muslims during the centuries of decline failed to live in accordance with the Quranic injunctions, the Holy Quran, , guarantees complete religious freedom for everyone. He said:

‘On the tolerance I might however say a word. It is matter for great sorrow that mainly through mistaken notion of zeal, the Muslims have during the period of decline, earned for themselves an unenviable reputation for intolerance. But that is not the fault of Islam. Islam has from the beginning proclaimed and inculcated the widest tolerance. For instance, so far as freedom of conscience is concerned the Quran says:

لا اکراہ فی الدین
And:
فمن شاٗ فلیومن و من شاٗ فلیکفر

‘There shall be no compulsion in matter of faith An alternative rendering can also be There can no compulsion in matters of faith inasmuch faith is a matter of conscience and conscience cannot be compelled; it also signifies there need be no compulsion in matters of faith. Guidance has been made manifest from error. Let him therefore who wills believe and let him who wills deny.’

To explain how perfect and complete freedom has been granted by the Holy Quran to everyone with regard to the expression of one’s faith and religion, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan also quoted an incident from the life of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, whereby a delegation of the Christians of Najran called upon him. A time came during their trip when they were also invited to have Mubahala with the Muslims. However, when the time came for their worship, the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, allowed them to worship in his own mosque.
A number of books have been written on what discussions were made in the Legislative Assembly of Pakistan at the time of the Resolution. It is pertinent to mention that although the above-mentioned part of Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan’s speech is quoted quite often in the books written on the subject, but the part of the speech wherein he gave many other important proposals is never mentioned. A couple of such books are as follows:

  • Constitutional Development in Pakistan…..p.52)
  • Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan…p. 80 & 81)

I would now like to quote the proposals made at that time by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, since before developing any final opinion, it is important to keep them in view.
After relating the hadith, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan said:

‘The recital of this incident while completely reassuring our non-muslim friends might possibly come as a shock to some of the Muslims who unfortunately have gradually drifted into an extremely narrow and bigoted outlook in these matters. But for that very reason it is worth stressing’.

However, this statement pertained to his religious ideology. The making of the constitution, on the other hand, is a practical task. To move it in the right direction, one has to come up with solid proposals. The emblem in the constitution is only a brief statement of mission. To secure basic human rights for everyone, there has to be in the constitution certain sections and clauses to guarantee these basic rights.
We have to look at this point:

  • As mentioned earlier, members of the opposition party in the Assembly at that time expressed their reservations about the contents of the Resolution, which, to them, failed to guarantee clear-cut political, ideological and religious freedom to everyone. They thought the minorities will not be given equal rights. What we have to see is what suggestion was given to them by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan regarding this issue. Did he tell them to abandon their demand, or did he say something else? Here is what said:

‘If I may be permitted, Sir, humbly to offer a word of counsel to my non-Muslim friends it would be to urge them to insist that the ideals set up by Islam before the Muslims and indeed before mankind in all these spheres should be fully carried into practice.’.

Let us see what he said addressing the issue of what the Legislative Assembly should do to make sure that the minorities and everyone is given equal right. He said:

‘But what is to be feared is that in place of the ideals set up by Islam, people may fall into the error of substituting tinsel imitations and narrow bigotries. That apprehension would apply particularly to freedom of thought and tolerance and it would behove both this assembly upon whom the responsibility of framing the constitution ultimately rests and leaders of the Muslim opinion generally to see that the ideals set up by Islam in this and other fields that may properly and legitimately fall within purview of the constitution, are faithfully and fully adhered and given effect to’.

Members of the Muslim League in the Legislative Assembly at the time gave assurances to the Hindu members that the Resolution will never be interpreted in a way whereby it impinges upon anyone’s religious freedom. At this, the opposition also expressed their fear that the coming generations in Pakistan will eventually slide to interpret the Resolution in a negative manner. Addressing this point, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan said:

‘An apprehension was expressed that the explanations and assurances furnished and given on the floor of the house may be adequate, but may be disregarded and ignored by the successors of those by whom they are being furnished and given. But this overlooks the procedure that is proposed to be followed. As soon as the resolution is adapted, the house will be invited to set up a committee for the purpose of formulating, concrete proposals based upon the resolution, embodying the main principles on which the constitution is to be framed. Those proposals will then come before the house and after the house has adapted those proposals with such modifications as it chooses to make, further steps will be taken to draft the constitution in accordance with those proposals. It should thus be clear that the explanations furnished and the assurances given during the course of this debate will be reflected in the concrete proposals which the committee soon to be set up by the house will frame; and the proposals will in turn be translated into the provisions of the constitution’.

The method that was being adopted at that time for the making of the constitution was that a Basic Principles Committee was being set up to prepare the basic principles of the constitution. In response to the reservations expressed by the opposition members at that time, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan proposed that the guarantees and assurances given by the Muslim members to their Hindu brothers regarding the freedom of religion and basic rights should also be made part of the constitution , so that future generations may not be able to temper with or misinterpret the Resolution in any manner. However, it is a sad reality that the debate that ensued kept itself concerned with and focused upon the number of the members of the Legislature from various provinces. What is more, the constitution could not be completed by 1956. The preamble of the constitution cannot render null and void the clauses that have been made an essential part of the constitution. For example, the preamble of the Irish Constitution is as follows:

‘In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Ire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution’.

One can hardly expect a preamble more religious in tone than this. However, we see that the same Ireland had passed a bill in favour of same-sex marriage rendering the preamble completely ineffective. A debate is now going on about the constitution of the European Union as well. German chancellor Angela Merkel and many other European leaders support the idea that the preamble of the European Union Constitution must make a mention of the Christian values. However, many countries are opposed to this idea.

See:  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/29/germany.eu

What is really surprising is that when references are made to the speech delivered by Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan on the occasion of the Objectives Resolution, these important points he made in his speech are ignored and not quoted. The proposals he had given are also ignored.
I agree that each and every person has the right to have any opinion regarding a matter. However, one must try to know the facts before reaching a conclusion.

  • ved prakash
  • saadhafiz

    Dear CM, I can’t understand the motivation behind planting flags at all. To me dealing with social and economic issues is far more important than focusing on trashy nationalist and religious symbols.

  • kaalchakra

    Dr Asadi, thank you for your advice. Do what you must. You have my best wishes.

  • Fingolfin

    Not quite Kaal but I am with Chomsky for the most part on this.
    .
    You may have read this. I don’t have much to add to what Chomsky already said here. Sam Harris thinks it proves a point for him so he published it in his blog. Other than Chomsky’s impatience, I think Chomsky wiped the floor with him generally speaking.
    .
    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

  • Amerikka

    @Masadi
    I am not kaalchakra.
    So it was like I guessed. They gently let go of you by not renewing your contract.
    While discrimination can’t be ruled out as a possible motive, it is quite likely that your brash attitude and linear thinking was felt to be poor qualities for a liberal arts professor.
    Blame America if you want but American universities are full of foreign born teachers and researchers and plenty of independent minded immigrants have risen up to commanding heights. People like you are let go for reasons other than those that you like to believe.
    Let me give you one hint. The most sought after qualities of a good liberal arts mentor is patience and a capacity to inspire. Clearly you lack both.
    Don’t take it out on RHR.
    The source of your angst is elsewhere; like within your own head.

  • AfriKKKa

    If he was sane enough to ‘get’ that, he wouldn’t be back in Pakiland, whining and grizzling and immersed in self-pity, and going after whomever he feels is defenceless and can be attacked safely.

  • Vish

    Don’t spend money on improving Govt schools, instead crackdown fascist controls over private schools… http://t.co/XxThSx2sZQ

  • Vish

    The difference between the education standards of Govt and private schools is so stark that even poor want to send wards to Private Schools
    .
    Govt must regulate Pvt Schools(like it does any other business)against unfair practices(like forcing to buy things, or hidden chgs)
    .
    But other than ensuring that Private Schools operate transparently and fairly, they must be left free to fix their fees
    .
    That Parents are ready to pay and be ‘exploited’ by Private Schools but dont want to send to Govt schools tells you where the problem lies.
    .
    Leave Pvt schools alone, make Govt schools functional, give choice to poor with school vouchers, that’s what Manish Sisodia (AAP) must be doing
    .
    If the money Govt spends on its Schools(in which enrollments are down to a trickle) is given as vouchers, it’ll be Rs 2000/child/mnth

    .
    Screw Private Schools by choking their revenue, finish whatever remains of Govt schools by unaffiliating them from CBSE: Sisodia’s plan
    .
    Sisodia wants Govt Schools to stop following NCERT & CBSE! Wants to set up a Delhi Board. That will solve problem of teachers not teaching
    .
    Sisodia wants Govt Schools to stop following NCERT & CBSE! Wants to set up a Delhi Board. That will solve problem of teachers not teaching
    .
    The quality of teachers in Govt Schools is of level of an epidemic, but the priority of Govt is Private Schools
    .
    2014 report by Pratham:
    Only 25% class 3 children can read a class 2 text fluently
    25% children in class 3 couldnt recognise 2 digit numbers
    .
    Not a single student joined Class I in 534 Karnataka govt schools http://t.co/y0DwIQPA7n

    How Control(RTE)has wrecked our school education

  • Vish

    Here is newslink to Sisodia’s Tughlaqi designs for Delhi Schools http://t.co/NXPc8Ag1w7

  • Vish

    I have said before ; I have major issues with Babus of RTE exempt communities being placed in charge of executing communal laws
    .
    If you are a Muslim or Christian (or any other minority) Babu in charge of enforcing RTE that does not apply in-toto to your tribe/religion
    .
    You will not exercise the intellectual discipline and self-restraint if you know that your tribe/religion is Immune from consequences
    .
    Consequences include fall outs of your action ( 50-100yr old schools killed) or reciprocal action by Hindu babus against your tribe
    .
    We ALL want a secular executive where tribal identity of babus dont matter. This is why no civilized country has laws like RTE.
    ——-
    RTE act is the worst and the most dangerous act devised and implemented in India. This will destroy the education in the country.

  • ved prakash

    primary education is already destroyed in india by….

  • Bin Ismail

    @ Parliament Certified Muslim (August 29, 2015 at 8:56 pm)

    As a genuine and eternal Parliament-certified Muslim, certified as “Muslim” in accordance with the inspired Second Amendment to the Aasmani Constitution of the Islamic State of Pakistan, I am duty-bound to shed some heavenly light on the topic under discussion. In my august and most-worthy opinion, the issue is not whether Zafrullah offered the Janaza (Funeral prayers) of Kafir-e-Azam Jinnah, sadly led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani or not. The “real issue” is:
    Why were Jinnah’s funeral prayers offered in the first place?
    .
    Once it had been established by the Fatwa of our great Ulama of Jamiatul Ulama and also by the inspiring words of Hazrat Maulana Maudoodi that Jinnah was not only a Kafir, but the Kafir-e-Azam (Greatest Infidel), there was no justification for Jinnah’s janaza in the first place. He was going to go to Hell anyway. Aren’t we talking about the same Jinnah who was given the following “titles” by our most venerable Ulama:
    .
    1) Mr. Zina
    2) Kafir-e-Azam
    3) Bani-e-Napakistan
    4) Bani-e-Paleedistan
    .
    These “titles” were awarded, as punitive measures, by our following great sages:
    .
    1) Ulama of Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Hind (aka Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat)
    2) Ulama of Jamiat-ul-Ulama
    3) Ulama of Jamaat-i-Islami
    .
    According to our most enlightened Ulama, Muslims are “not permitted” to offer prayers for any Kafir. Jinnah was beyond that. He was the Kafir-e-Azam (the Greatest of all Kafirs). I recall reading somewhere that Zafrullah said that while he did not offer the prayers led by Maulana Shabbir Usmani, he did pray for Jinnah privately. Why wouldn’t he? Kafirs will pray for Kafirs.
    .
    Now, coming to the “real issue” – Why were Jinnah’s funeral prayers offered in the first place? – I must state clearly that most of our Jayyid Ulama agree that all those who offered the Janaza Prayers of Jinnah, were instantly out of the Pale of Islam. Each and every single Muslim, who offered the Janaza prayers of Kafir-e-Azam Jinnah, instantly became a “Kafir” and “Murtad” himself, and his Nikah was automatically dissolved. All conjugal relations that existed between Muslim men who offered Jinnah’s funeral prayers and their ex-wives amounted to Adultery (Zina) and all children born out of such unions are illegitimate.

    Thank you Sir, for raising the “real issue”, of which our under-educated nation has somehow remained oblivious, till now. Thank you also, for educating us on the various “titles” that were conferred upon our Quaid by the Ulama of those days. It has also become apparent, while going through the insightful comments on this page, that “Sir” was not the only title offered to this truly great leader.
    .
    @ Hayyer (August 30, 2015 at 1:04 am)

    Coming to Sir Zafrullah himself, he could not have imagined that his own community would need the assurances he held out to Hindu members.

    Mr. Gandhi could also not have imagined that he would be murdered by someone from his own community. In spite of the foresight our leaders, surprises do seem to have found their way.
    .
    Regards

  • Down__Under

    Except that Gandhi’s surprise cost him his own life. Zafrulla pushed millions into misery.

  • Vish

    Salman & Louise Khurshid to launch a ”rival” Delhi Public School (DPS). Education is big-business indeed. http://t.co/FvGb90vuZW
    .
    This will be RTE exempt. Create a situation to destroy education in government schools. Bring evil act like RTE and then use political clout to open RTE exempt schools to make huge money.
    This is Sonia’s India.

  • Chote Miyan

    Bin Ismail,
    “Mr. Gandhi could also not have imagined that he would be murdered by someone from his own community.”
    .
    Actually, he did.

  • timely

    ban plastic bags
    dig a small hole and then defecate in it and push dry soil upon it
    and then India will become cleanest nation
    so simple

  • AfriKKKa

    “I was not “let go” the contract term which had no guarantee of renewal and was a one time affair expired that is all, if I had kissed ass and not taken a stand and been flowery with my anti imperialist stand I would still be there. ”

    What’s the difference? They had a choice, they decided they really didn’t need you.

    What gave you the impression that a contract with no guarantee of renewal and was a one-time affair was in the bag for you, IF you had done this, that and the other? Do you really, truly go through life thinking that if you had bought a lottery ticket, you would be the richest man in the world? Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? So do you.

  • Rex Minor

    the title of a knight, ‘SIR’ was granted to those who swear allegance to th cCROWN. Mr Zafrullah was a collaborator as was Messrs Nehru and Jinnah.The sooner the Pakis and Indianrs acknowledge this facr they will be able to understand their history better.

    Rex Minor

  • AfriKKKa

    Of course you know exactly why you are currently unemployed, and your colleagues have job offers without even completing their dissertations or having even a quarter of your publications or your teaching experience. Everyone else seems to get it; how come you don’t? You just aren’t worth hiring.

    How sad they suckered you into accepting this adjunct position and then abruptly let you down. Any idiot could have told you what to do and what to expect, but you weren’t even talking to yourself then, were you?

    The fun part is watching you try to justify your general incompetence and unemployability by getting into pettifogging detail. That makes you good at pettifoggery, not good at teaching. And that’s where you’ll stay. Comprenez-vous, imbecile? and if you are into using foreign phrases, get them right.

  • Ranger625372

    Wow, whoever AfriKKKa is, his command over English is masterly.

  • AfriKKKa

    He? His? Presumptuous, anybody?

  • Swapandas G

    The election of the Narendra Modi Government in May 2014 has seen many changes in governance, the economy and even society. The question often asked is: How much?
    .
    Those who believe that the mandate was revolutionary, a vote to effect a radical break with the past, have often complained that the Government is too wedded to continuity. There has, for example, been an interesting debate on whether the Government should have opted for ‘big bang’ economic reforms, including the dismantling of the public sector and massive subsidy cuts, or pursued incremental changes that can be managed by an essentially status quo-loving bureaucracy.
    .
    Likewise, there are Left-inclined individuals and those affected by the curbs on the foreign-funding of NGOs who feel that the India of 2015 is different from the one bequeathed to his successor by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Some have described the shifts as moves towards authoritarianism or even fascism, while still others have detected a creeping erosion of State secularism.
    .
    The debate has inevitably spilled over into foreign policy where Modi’s aggressive global outreach with a strong economic underpinning has been favourably juxtaposed with the unending muddle over the nuisance along the western borders. That Modi is determined to use India’s economic potential to emerge as a major regional power (with a global footprint) has been obvious. This despite the cussed comments his foreign visits have invited from courtiers of the former durbar for who the history of Independent India is the history of one family.
    .
    One feature of Modi’s global outreach has been India’s deepening engagement with its diaspora and a conscious bid to make Overseas Indians co-partners in the larger mission of nation reconstruction. Whether in New York, Toronto, Sydney and Dubai, the Prime Minister has spoken to packed gatherings of Indians elated by the knowledge that the Prime Minister acknowledges their importance. For many Overseas Indians, detached from home, Modi has created an environment that permits a deep emotional bonding with the cultural motherland.
    .
    The response to the Prime Minister has been nothing short of overwhelming. After the Dubai event that touched a chord among Indian workers accustomed to being shabbily treated both by their employers and the country that benefits immeasurably from their remittances, it will be the turn of San Francisco and London.
    .
    Modi will speak to the large, prosperous and influential Indian diaspora in the Silicon Valley on September 27. Then, just after Diwali, he will address Overseas Indians (including a large contingent of Gujaratis who came to Britain from East Africa but still maintain their India connections) at the iconic Wembley Stadium that can accommodate nearly 80,000 people. Both occasions will be an opportunity to simultaneously demonstrate the political clout of the diaspora in California and the United Kingdom.
    .
    The linkage made between India’s economy and culture with a diaspora that, for a change, feels proud to be linked to India, is important in the larger diplomatic game. By making it clear to the world that it regards the diaspora as an extension of its soul, it is assuming some moral responsibility for their larger well-being. This, in turn, will enhance the stature of the Indian diaspora in their respective countries, not least because India now counts as a force for the good and a rising economic power. The image problem faced by Pakistan in the non-Islamic world doesn’t extend to India.
    .
    The engagement with the diaspora has an additional dimension. By facilitating the emotional connect with India and, not least, the Prime Minister, India is preparing the ground for elevating the diaspora to the status of a permanent India lobby. It was then Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government that first utilised the diaspora to offset some of the sustained pressure on India after the Pokhran-II tests in 1998. The story of how the US sanctions were neutralised using the good offices of Overseas Indians is a story that needs to be documented and narrated. It is reassuring that Modi is building on this legacy and, indeed, enlarging its scope.
    .
    It is in this context that a petition signed by various US-based academics to many Silicon Valley technology companies assumes some significance. Ever since the likelihood of Modi winning the 2014 general election sunk in, various petitions by the Left-liberal lobby to like-minded newspapers painting him as the Indian incarnation of Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler did the rounds. Earlier, some academics at the University of Pennsylvania forced the cancellation of a video talk by Modi to students. What marked these interventions was that the attacks were directed against Modi the individual. It was their visceral hatred of him that was paramount.
    .
    This time it is different. The galaxy of historians, post-modernists, gender studies experts and sociologists, I didn’t detect physicists or other ‘science types’ in the long list, have basically called upon IT companies in the Silicon Valley to opt out of any engagement with the ‘Digital India’ programme of the Indian Government.
    .
    These guys are unhappy with the developments in Nalanda University, with the ICHR appointment and “constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary.” Therefore, “these alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about the modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country.” Their solution: US companies must shun business links with the Indian State.
    .
    The academics-imposed sanctions on India will in all likelihood not even be seriously considered. But that is not the point. What we are witnessing is the willingness of an intellectual diaspora to actually wage war on India’s development. From political opposition to Modi they have moved to sabotaging India in the world.
    .
    If I didn’t think their paranoia suggest a deep disconnect with Indian realities, I would have called them treacherous. In any case, it is always worth remembering the names of all those who are ready to subvert India because they didn’t like the way Indians voted.

  • AfriKKKa

    RHR, have you – or someone else – been sucking up to the BJP and its spokespeople? Do we dare to split the name just used into its components and re-assemble it?

  • PaKKKistan

    mASSadi AAShole, so you had one-year adjunct contract in an obscure university, the lowest of the low appointments in academia, the dregs of the academic world? Even that contract was not renewed. Did they hire you based off on some Pakkkistani Ph.D. from AXACT?

  • AfriKKKa

    Good one, that. Thanks for the inspiring thought, PaKKKistan, it will fuel more research and more consequent exposition on the theme.

  • Parliament certified Muslim

    @Bin Ismail (August 30, 2015 at 9:10 am)

    Thank you Sir, for raising the “real issue”, of which our under-educated nation has somehow remained oblivious, till now. Thank you also, for educating us on the various “titles” that were conferred upon our Quaid by the Ulama of those days. It has also become apparent, while going through the insightful comments on this page, that “Sir” was not the only title offered to this truly great leader.

    Don’t thank me. You should have the decency to thank our venerable Ulama-e-Deen such as Hazrat Maulana Maudoodi of Jamaat-i-Islami who named Pakistan Na-pakistan, the Ulama of Majlis Ahrar (aka Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat) and the Ulama of Jamiatul Ulama who named Pakistan Paleedistan. By the way, they also rightfully gave your Quaid the titles of:

    1) Mr. Zina

    2) Kafir-e-Azam

    Just keep watching. The first announcement that will echo from Radio Pakistan when JI and JUI take over will be:

    “The Paleedistan that was founded by Kafir-e-Azam Mr. Zina has been taken over by the Ulama and Mujahideen who have defeated the Na-pak Army. The reins of the government are now firmly in the hands of the Ulama.”

    Your Army is no match to the Ulama. The Pak Army has only one PMA, while the Ulama have around 40,000 Madrassahs. Remember that 1<40,000. As for the "real issue", the "real issue" in this entire debate remains to be:

    Why were Jinnah’s funeral prayers offered in the first place?

    Remember, anyone who has been declared a “Kafir” by the Ulama-e-Deen, has no right to Janaza prayers. A “Janaza prayer” is the sole and singular right of a “Muslim”, certified as a “Muslim” by the Ulama-e-Deen.

    .

    @Down_Under (August 30, 2015 at 9:21 am)

    …Gandhi’s surprise cost him his own life. Zafrulla pushed millions into misery.

    Very well said, my brother in Parliament-certified Islam! Very few people, with the exception of “Certified Muslims”, such as yourself and of course my worthy self, are aware of the fact that Gandhi’s death was not because of the bullet that was allegedly fired by Godsey. That was a mere coincidence. Gandhi’s death was due to the element of “surprise”. Eye witnesses say that as soon as Godsey appeared before Gandhi, Godsey squinted his eyes and said “Surprise!!”. Gandhi died on the spot, surprised. Godsey’s bullet actually turned out to be a “hawai fire” and missed Gandhi by a mile or so. You are also right about Zafrulla pushing millions into misery. He assisted Kafir-e-Azam Mr. Zina with the Lahore Declaration in 1940, at the Radcliffe Commission in 1947, then as Foreign Minister of Mr. Zina’s Paleedistan, and then, in the words of Hazrat Maulana Maudoodi, as the “napak” country’s representative in the UN.

  • @Hayyar
    Thank you for your comments, in which you wrote
    “Coming to Sir Zafrullah himself, he could not have imagined that his own community would need the assurances he held out to Hindu members.”
    Here I have a small correction to make. The fact is when the sad massacre on both sides after partition was over, Ahmadis were the first victim of hate campaign and persecution, and it had started before this speech in March 1949. Speeches of ulema against Ahmadis had started and even an Ahmadi army officer Dr. Mahmud was lynched in public in Quetta. (Please see Judicial report on 1953 riots page 13&14. Kind Regards

  • Down__Under

    Parliament Certified

    All your surprise cannot save Zafrullah from deadly irony.

  • paKKKistan

    mASSadi, don’t massage your ego by using such labels as ‘workers in academia’. Indentured servants, fast-food workers, drone slaves is more like it. In paKKKistan AXACT university you can be an academic worker. Bragging on Internet can be your only source of self-validation.

  • bonobashi
  • Arzu

    Bono ji,
    Read the first comment after the article by some sankara menon..its a befitting reply..
    Is this thapar lady some kind of a holy cow for leftist..
    Please also write on why leftie sympathisers are adopting propaganda tactics … their hold is weakining ha..

  • bonobashi

    OK, let’s get this clear, Arzu.

    I’m not a leftie sympathiser, I am opposed to right wing fascists.

    I read the Sankara Menon comment and I note that you think it is befitting.

  • Hayyer

    Bin Ismail:
    Gandhi knew the strength of feeling among Hindu Mahasabha types being the one who insisted on religion in politics, and he did know that there were Hindus who wanted to kill him.

    Mr. Swapandas G:
    What was the point of that press release about the Prime Minister on a Pakistan web site discussing Zafrullah Khan?

  • Arzu

    So what was the idea behind posting this link?
    Is this happening 1st time in india that someone left midterm . What is fascistic in the news item?

  • Bin Ismail

    Hayyer :
    .
    Indeed, Mr. Gandhi was aware of the threat that he faced from extremist Hindus. In the case of Sir Zafrulla Khan too, we are talking about a person on whose life an attempt had earlier been made. The gentleman, standing behind whom Sir Zafrulla Khan chose not to pray, too, had declared him “Wajibul Qatl”. Fanaticism was something that was being faced on either side.

  • @down_under
    Regarding your comments:
    All your surprise cannot save Zafrullah from deadly irony.
    With respect sir, it was Pakistan which suffered irony of fate, by being trapped into corrent fiasco. As far as Zafrullah Khan is concerned he lived a wonderful life. When he left Pakistani cabinet, in 1954, he moved to International Court of Justice. At one stage he became President of UN general assembly. Then he became President of International Court of Justice, then in 1973 he himself decided to retire. After this, even in this old age he devoted himself to literary works till his death. I saw him when he was in late 80’s, he was a happy and satisfied man. Though he must have felt sorry for the his country, as he expressed in his book,”The Agony of Pakistan.” He died in Pakistan. I participated in his funeral. Despite all the opposition in Pakistan, he got a heroe’s funeral. I remember thousands of people who were trying to get close to his coffin, and thousands of people stood in long lines for hours to get one last glance on his face. Many could’nt get this chance. Sir, I remember it clearly when his body was being lowered in grave, thousands were praying for him. Trust me none of this is exaggeration. Of course anyone is free to criticize him if he thinks so , as I choose to admire him. But I can assure you that he had a blessed end.

  • sta

    @Parliament certified Muslim (August 30, 2015 at 10:57 pm)

    The Pak Army has only one PMA, while the Ulama have around 40,000 Madrassahs. Remember that 1<40,000.

    Notwithstanding the minority:majority equation that exists between the number of Pakistan Military academies and the madrassahs in Pakistan, you would appreciate that it’s not always about quantity. Quality does matter. We have already witnessed the quality of the performance of madrassah-graduates when they played football with the heads of the beheaded Pak Army soldiers. The Pak Army is a professional force and you will soon see how the graduates of one PMA eventually defeat the graduates of 40,000 madrassahs. History might just prove that 1>40,000. You have also said:

    As for the “real issue”, the “real issue” in this entire debate remains to be: Why were Jinnah’s funeral prayers offered in the first place? Remember, anyone who has been declared a “Kafir” by the Ulama-e-Deen, has no right to Janaza prayers. A “Janaza prayer” is the sole and singular right of a “Muslim”, certified as a “Muslim” by the Ulama-e-Deen.

    The “real issue” raised by the author of the article seems to be somewhat different, and one can hardly miss it, which is that Sir Zafrulla could not concievably have joined a funeral prayer service that was being led by someone who openly declared Sir Zafrulla not only a “non-Muslim” but also “wajib-ul-qatl”. If someone considers me worthy of being killed, I would have to be insane to pray behind him. Sir Zafrulla, as we all know, was not insane. Now, coming to what you consider to be the real issue – “why were Jinnah’s funeral prayers offered in the first place” – all I can say is that because he had passed away. And of course, since he was a “Muslim”, according to his own assessment, which is more than enough to qualify him as a “Muslim”, he deserved his last rites to be carried out in a Muslim way.
    .
    @Sultan (August 30, 2015 at 11:22 pm)

    The fact is when the sad massacre on both sides after partition was over, Ahmadis were the first victim of hate campaign and persecution, and it had started before this speech in March 1949. Speeches of ulema against Ahmadis had started and even an Ahmadi army officer Dr. Mahmud was lynched in public in Quetta.

    Indeed. Maj. Dr. Mahmud Shaheed, an Ahmadi, was brutally murdered by a violent mob in Quetta in1948. The first thing that the Majlis-e-Ahrar leaders did after migrating to Pakistan – the same Pakistan their Ulema had dubbed “Paleedistan” and whose founder they had named “Kafir-e-Azam” – was to initiate a country-wide campaign against Ahmadis. Maj. Dr. Mahmud was the first victim of this campaign. Incidentally, Majlis-e-Ahrar now operate in Pakistan, under the name of Tahaffuz Khatme Nubuwwat, with a militant wing called Ahrar-ul-Hind/Jamaat-ul-Ahrar.
    .
    @Down_Under (August 30,2015 at 11:59 pm)

    All your surprise cannot save Zafrullah from deadly irony.

    It is indeed ironical that the country that was created to protect minority rights, itself fell victim to minority persecution.

  • bonobashi

    A profile of the brilliant historian and archaeologist suggested by Mr. Arun Gupta a few messages earlier.

    Clio clearly has no dearth of white knights galumphing to her rescue. It’s quite another matter that she didn’t ask.

    Professor Kar is an internationally recognized scholar of contract law, philosophy of law, moral and legal philosophy, and the evolution of legal systems and complex social structure (including modern markets). He draws on methods that include not only traditional legal studies but also philosophy, psychology, evolutionary theory, game theory, economics, neuroscience, anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and comparative cultural and legal studies. These methods inform his research into what law is and how it functions in people’s lives.

    Professor Kar’s scholarship falls into three interrelated categories. The first line of work draws on contemporary advances in evolutionary game theory to suggest that humans have a naturally evolved sense of obligation, which functions to allow them to resolve a broad range of cooperative problems. The relevant psychological attitudes, which Professor Kar calls “obligata”, incline people to engage in a highly structured form of human social life and interaction. Obligata animate large segments of legal and social behavior but—Professor Kar argues—this form of life is not well understood as arising only from classical “rational actor” models of human behavior (even as supplemented by more recent developments in behavioral economics). Some representative works include The Deep Structure of Law and Morality, The Psychological Foundations of Human Rights, and The Two Faces of Morality.

    Professor Kar’s second main line of scholarship draws on these psychological insights to characterize the nature of law and the evolutionary stability conditions for emergent legal systems. This work falls partly within the tradition of analytic legal philosophy, but it takes a more evolutionary and naturalistic perspective on these developments than is common. Professor Kar’s interests here extend to the emergence of not only domestic but also international legal systems, along with the laws and norms needed to support advanced market economies. Some representative works include Hart’s Response to Exclusive Legal Positivism, Western Legal Prehistory: Reconstructing the Hidden Origins of Western Law and Western Civilization, and Outcasting, Globalization, and the Emergence of International Law.

    Professor Kar’s third main line of scholarship develops a general interpretive theory of contract, entitled Contract as Empowerment. On this view, contract law is neither a mere mechanism to promote efficiency nor a mere reflection of any familiar moral norm—such as norms of promise keeping, property, or corrective justice. Contract law is instead a mechanism of empowerment: it empowers people to use legally enforceable promises as tools to influence other people’s actions that thereby meet a broad range of human needs and interests. It also empowers them in a special way, which reflects a moral ideal of equal respect for persons. This fact explains why contract law can produce genuine legal obligations and is not just a system of coercion. Contract as empowerment absorbs many economic insights but gives them a fundamentally different interpretation. It suggests that contracting and modern market activities are not simply spheres where self-interest runs wild. They are instead spheres of moral interaction, which can engage people’s natural sense of obligation and generate genuine legal obligations—at least so long as contract law is simultaneously personally empowering and reflective of a moral ideal of equal respect for persons. This work thus builds upon but offers fundamental challenges to the prevailing law and economics paradigm. It seeks to promote a deeper reconciliation between personal morality and the marketplace—or between moral and economic agency. But Professor Kar believes current law needs to be changed so that markets are more equally empowering to market participants. Some representative works include Contract as Empowerment, The Challenge of Boilerplate, and The Emerging New Life of Contract Studies.

    Professor Kar’s work has been published in a number of top journals, including the Yale Law Journal (both in print and on-line), the Georgetown Law Journal, the Texas Law Review, the Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights, Law & Philosophy, and the NOMOS volume on Evolution and Morality. Professor Kar is currently the Director of the Illinois Program on Interdisciplinary and Comparative Jurisprudence, a Project Leader for the Illinois Program on Cultures of Law in Global Contexts, and a Faculty Affiliate of the Illinois Program in Law and Philosophy, the Illinois Program in Law, Behavior and the Social Sciences, the Illinois Network for Neurocultures, the Beckman Institute, and the Institute for Genomic Biology. He is the current President of the Society for the Evolutionary Analysis of Law, one of the co-editors of the Jotwell Section on Jurisprudence, and Editor-in-Chief of the Illinois Law Faculty Blog.

  • bonobashi

    Arun Gupta

    I owe you an apology, if my comments gave the impression that they seem to have given you. The intention was not to disparage your individual contribution in making this piece of research known to us. The intention was something else.

  • Arun Gupta

    Bonobashi, for the duration this comment remains here before it is removed by our liberal censor of PTH, thanks!

    Kaalchakra, request remains – how to be in touch off of PTH. My twitter handle is macgupta123

  • kaalchakra

    Apologies, Arun. I will contact you. Thanks,

  • It is strange that preamble of Pakistani constitution is Islamic, and preamble of Indian constitution is socialist, but there nothing Islamic in Pakistan now a days, and there is nothing socialist in current BJP government policies.

  • Parliament certified Muslim

    @ masadi (September 5, 2015 at 12:30 am)

    . . .ain’t that a kick in the head. . .

    .
    Thank you, dear brother-in-Parliament-certified-Islam, for reminding all PTH visitors of the great heroic deed of Ulama-e-Deen, when they humiliated the Pak Army, by playing Al Football with the heads of soldiers of this so-called Pak Army. First of all, this army needs to be renamed in light of the the Fatwa of Hazrat Maulana Maudoodi (Founder of the Jamaat-i-Islami). According to the historic Fatwa of Hazrat Maulana Maudoodi:
    .
    FATWA No. 1.“. . .this country founded by Mr. Jinnah deserves to be called Napak-istan.” (Maulana Maudoodi)
    .
    If the country’s name, as decreed by Hazrat Maulana Maudoodi, is “Napakistan”, then its army should, in light of this decree, be called the Na-Pak Army. In order to teach a lesson to the so-called “Pak Army”, our Ulama-e-Deen devised a 3-step program:
    .
    Step 1. capture Pak Army soldiers
    Step 2. behead them
    Step 3. play Football
    .
    This sport, which has recently gained acceptance among the Ulama of TTP, IS, LJ, JD, JI, and JUI, has been given the name of Al Football. This is no ordinary football. This is Al Football, which means “The Football”. Al Football is literally a “kick in the head” of the Na-Pak Army by all-powerful Ulama.
    .
    The fate of the so-called “Pak Army” has also further been sealed by another great irreversible Fatwa, which was issued by another great aalim and leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, its former Ameer, the great visionary Hazrat Maulana Munawwar Hassan. Hazrat Maulana Munawwar Hassan decreed thus:
    .
    FATWA No. 2.“. . .Pakistan Army soldiers killed in this war against terror (Zarb-e-Azb) are NOT shaheeds. They are merely Maqtools. And all Taliban killed in this war are definitely SHAHEEDS” (Maulana Munawwar Hassan)
    .
    The so-called Pak Army can observe 6th September as much as they like, but they should remember that the Fatwa No. 1 and Fatwa No.2, issued by the Jamaat-i-Islami leadership, have forever, sealed the fate of the so-called “Pak Army”. The Ulama have said the final word.

  • Parliament certified Muslim

    @ masadi (September 6, 2015 at 4:26 pm)

    …makes sense when the head is still attached to the neck and the person is living.

    .
    My dear mildly irritated brother-in-parliament-certified-Islam: Be not perturbed, for you and I both relish the same Certificate-of-Islam issued by the Parliament of Pakistan, in light of the inspired Second Amendment of 1974. You have hurriedly said, “…makes sense when the head is still attached to the neck and the person is living.“. Pause, my brother and take a deep breath. The central question, here, is that how can one play football with a head that is still attached to the neck? The Ulama have already pondered over this extremely delicate question, from all possible angles. You have to consider the Ulama’s predicament more compassionately. Their righteous intention was to play Al Football with the heads of the soldiers of the so-called Pak Army. The “heads” were to be used as “footballs” and a football, as you know, needs to be spherical. The venerable Ulama of TTP, LJ, JI and JUI, all sat and thought over this in depth, finally arriving at the conclusion that they needed the “heads” without the necks.
    .

    Lest you forget, let me remind you that according to the historic Fatwa of Hazrat Maulana Munawwar Hassan (former Ameer of Jamaat-i-Islami), Pakistan Army soldiers killed in action are “not shaheeds”. They are merely Maqtools. The Taliban, in contrast, killed in action against the Pakistan Army are all Shaheeds.

  • It is interesting that, during discussion on objectives resolution, one honorable member expressed the fear that in future some people in Pakistan may demand Caliphate system or demand Muhtasib system. The name of this member was Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Datta. We should salute the intelligence of this member because both predictions ultimately proved to be true.

  • Bin Ismail

    @ Parliament certified Muslim (September 7, 2015 at 6:01 am)

    Lest you forget, let me remind you that according to the historic Fatwa of Hazrat Maulana Munawwar Hassan (former Ameer of Jamaat-i-Islami), Pakistan Army soldiers killed in action are “not shaheeds”. They are merely Maqtools. The Taliban, in contrast, killed in action against the Pakistan Army are all Shaheeds.

    Despite their amnesia, most patriotic Pakistanis find this fatwa quite unforgettable, even without reminders. However, you are obviously free to continue reminding all visitors of PTH of both, the esteemed certification of your faith and, of course, this exceedingly unforgettable fatwa.