Daily Times

Never before has there been a greater need than today to reprint a report commonly known as Munir Enquiry Report of 1954, about which few people must be aware of, and even fewer must have read it. But it is the most fundamental document ever to emerge after the creation of Pakistan. This is the first serious study of the genesis of Pakistani nation, its evolution and philosophy. It is unique because it is not based on hearsay, but on basic hard facts which govern the thoughts and minds of our people.

On January 1953, a conglomerate of clerics through a resolution demanded that the Ahmadiyya community be declared non-Muslims, but it was rejected by the Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin. As a result of a crackdown on some religious leaders, the Ulema  resorted to direct action which unleashed a wave of looting and killing of the minority community. In Police firing some people also died and several injured. This led the government to impose Martial Law and call for an enquiry.

A Court of Enquiry was constituted under the Punjab Act II of 1954, to enquire into the Punjab disturbances of 1953. The Court was presided over by Justice Muhammad Munir who was assisted by Justice M.R. Kayani as a member. Their report of enquiry was the most clear-headed document full of wisdom and insight ever produced discussing the ideological basis of Pakistan which must be made an obligatory reading not only in Pakistan but elsewhere in the world where retrogression and ignorance are being forced down people’s throats in the name of religion. Both the judges observed that no one has given serious thought to the tremendous difficulties which would be confronted by the introduction of a religious state in Pakistan.

To examine the main issue giving rise to the Punjab disturbances of 1953, it was necessary to define a Muslim first. The Court asked the leaders of all religious parties to give their definition of who is a Muslim. The opinion of all the Ulama was taken and after their detailed examination the Court concluded that not only they disagreed among themselves as to who is a true Muslim, but they also regarded those outside the pale of Islam who did not subscribe to their particular definition. At this, the Judges sardonically remarked that they (the judges) withhold their own definition because if they (the judges) gave their definition which was different from those of the Ulama, then they would unanimously go out of the fold of Islam.

Their report of enquiry was the most clear-headed document full of wisdom and insight ever produced discussing the ideological basis of Pakistan which must be made an obligatory reading not only in Pakistan but elsewhere in the world where retrogression and ignorance are being forced down people’s throats in the name of religion. Both the judges observed that no one has given serious thought to the tremendous difficulties which would be confronted by the introduction of a religious state in Pakistan

While discussing what is or is not an ‘Islamic state’, they observed that “the authors of ‘Objective Resolution’ had misused the words ‘sovereign’ and ‘democracy’ when they recited that the Constitution was to be framed as a sovereign state in which principles of democracy as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed.” The Court held that “An Islamic state, however, cannot in this sense be sovereign because it will not be competent to abrogate repeal or do away with any law in the Quran or the Sunnah. Absolute restriction on the legislative powers of a state is a restriction on the sovereignty of the people of that state and if the origin of that restriction lies elsewhere than in the will of the people, then to the extent of that restriction, the sovereignty of the state and its people is necessarily taken away.”

The Court was also troubled by the question of the status of Muslims in India if by presumption a Hindu state had to be established in that country on the same lines as an Ulama-approved “Islamic” state in Pakistan. On a query by the Court, Maulana Maududi admitted before the Court that, ” I should have no objection even if Muslims of India are treated in that form of government, as ‘shudra’ or ‘malishes’ and are also deprived of all share in the government and the rights of a citizen….”

The Judges thus remarked, “The ideology advocated before us, if adopted by Indian Muslims, will completely disqualify them for public offices not only in India but in other countries as well which are under non-Muslim government. Muslims will become perpetual suspects everywhere…” And then the Court remarked that, “Nothing but a bold reorientation of Islam to separate the vital from the lifeless can preserve it as a world idea and convert the Musalman into a citizen of the present and the future world from the archaic incongruity that he is today.”

The Court further observed, “It is this lack of clear thinking, the inability to understand and take decisions which has brought about in Pakistan a confusion which will persist and repeatedly create situations of the kind we have been inquiring into, until our leaders have a clear conception of the goal and of the means to reach it. And as long as we rely on the hammer when a file is needed and press Islam into service to solve situations it was never intended to solve, frustration and disappointment must dog our steps.” In the context of the situation which caused sectarian disturbances in Punjab, the Court held that “If the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order, without any political considerations, one District Magistrate and one Superintendent of Police could have dealt with them.” The Court bemoaned the fact that if democracy means subordination of law and order to political ends, then this country is doomed.

And the Court ended their report with these words, “The sublime faith called Islam will live even if our leaders are not there to enforce it. It lives in the individual, in his soul and outlook, in all his relations with God and men, from the cradle to the grave, and our politicians should understand that if Divine Commands cannot make or keep a man a Musalman, their statutes will not.”

Wiser words than these have not been spoken. Will they be heeded or will we keep following our conventional ways and be forgotten one day as non-entities?

The writer is a former member of Provincial Civil Service. He can be reached at zafar.aziz.ch@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, October 27^th 2018.