March 23, 1940, was a Saturday. Britain, the colonial ruler of united India for two centuries, was embroiled in World War II and defending against the advance of Hitler. Winston Churchill was the man of the moment, leading a nation so deeply mired in the conflict that British women had been instructed to wear only light colors, with the dyes for dark ones in short supply and needed for the soldier’s uniforms. It was, in other words, an ideal time for rebellion, for Indian Muslims to break away from the yoke of colonial disempowerment and Hindu domination.

The rebellion came in the form of a resolution, one that would cement the formation of a new country. That was Pakistan, formed following a promise made on that day by the intrepid leader of the All-India Muslim League (AIML), Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Indian Muslims could not count on just and fair representation in a united India, he argued that day before the Indian Muslim leaders, becoming an irrevocable proponent for Pakistan, for secession. Jinnah’s words were recorded and duly agreed upon by the gathered assembly of the AIML. They became known as the Lahore Resolution. 

As Pakistanis know well, there have been many more resolutions since that first one, some of them morphing into constitutions, others fading and forgotten. When Pakistan was finally created in the late summer of 1947, Jinnah remained insistent that the country was to be a modern and independent republic made up of Muslims. It was a good idea but he did not live to fully realize it, dying a year after the country came to be. 

After his death came new resolutions. The Objectives Resolution in 1978 was pushed by Liaqat Ali Khan, then the prime minister. He declared that the transformation to come would make the country and constitution “Islamic.” Many new resolutions concerning the trajectory of the young nation continued to come, some birthed by military dictators suspending the “Islamic” aspect followed by other military dictators reinstating it.

The currently reigning Constitution of 1973 gingerly declares Pakistan an “Islamic Republic” but also retains protections for minorities and women, the separation of powers between courts and legislatures, and all the other sorts of things that a country with a constitution is supposed to have.

Yet while previous political tussles in Pakistan have involved the varying mix and make up of the Islamic and the Republic, and variously the military and the civilian, the past decade or so has revealed new sorts of dangers. New lines of conflict have been drawn between courts, which interpret the laws, and the political branches that rely on winning majorities at the polling booth.

As Pakistanis prepare for the elections this summer, it is important to take a moment to reflect on the birth of the country and what it stood for — and against.

Rafia Zakaria

Judicial pronouncements against political leaders — the disqualification of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for instance — have been described as instances of judicial activism, and prompted accusations of overstepping boundaries. To rebel against the power given to the courts to issue such decisions, a populist uprising is being whetted by politicians who feel threatened by judges who hand out verdicts against them. In the run-up to the election, crowds at rallies and television audiences are being told that democracy means majority rule. 

The statement is incorrect, for it ignores how the will of the people must be tempered by the rule of law. A rejection of the verdicts of the courts represents the rejection of constitutionalism and, even more crucially, the necessity of a check against the will of the majority.

On that bygone Saturday in March 1940, Jinnah revealed that he did not believe a united Hindu-majority India would safeguard the rights of Indian Muslims, who would always be a numerical minority. The announcement for the creation of Pakistan reflected Jinnah’s distaste for a country that would be enslaved by brute numerical majority, and his dogged refusal to be a part of it. 

That country would be India; the Pakistan he envisioned would be a contrast, a polity where just governance would be guaranteed by a constitution and a judiciary that existed to safeguard its precepts, ensure errant politicians were prosecuted and minorities protected.

Jinnah’s vision will be tested this July, when Pakistanis will vote and consider the fate of the country. A valuable consideration for all of them would be a renewed commitment to that first resolution, made on that first Pakistan Day, on that bygone Saturday in Lahore. 

• Rafia Zakaria is the author of “The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan” and “Veil.” She writes regularly for The Guardian, the Boston Review, the New Republic, the New York Times Book Review and many other publications. Twitter: @rafiazakaria