Liaquat Ali Khan: Myths and Reality

It may be counted as one of the special blessings of God on Pakistan that the life, work and even the death of its first prime minister was reminiscent of the early caliphs of Islam. Should we say that the present state of disorder is partially because we failed to cherish even the memory of this role model, let alone make any effort to emulate him?

In the span of a mere four years, Liaquat transformed a penniless state into "the most stable country in Asia". Pakistan started with practically an empty exchequer but within the tenure of its first prime minister, it was offering loans to other newborn states like Burma. It had resisted the international pressure against devaluing its currency at a time when even India gladly succumbed to that pressure. All this without taking any loans from foreign powers. 

From being an unknown country obscured by a hostile neighbour, Pakistan became the undisputed champion of the freedom of other colonized nations, fighting their cases successfully in the United Nations, in a span of mere four years. It had started taking practical steps for forming a block of Muslim nations for maintaining world peace. 

In any other country, a leader like Liaquat Ali Khan would have been hailed as a man of the millennium. One must wonder why in Pakistan his legacy is surrounded by malicious lies which have absolutely no basis in fact. The only plausible reason can be that he embodied the true ideology of Pakistan, which happens to be a rival to socialism, capitalism and conservatism at the same time.

Article continues after video

The last speech of Liaquat on October 16, 1951.
The gunshot that killed him is audible.

On the occasion of the 61st anniversary of the martyrdom of Liaquat, here are a few notes on the myths that surround him and a list of accessible readings that can be found online.

Myth No. 1: Liaquat did not accept the invitation for visiting USSR.

It is usually said that Liaquat Ali Khan did not accept an invitation for visiting USSR, and visited the USA instead. The truth is that he accepted the Russian invitation although it had been communicated to him just verbally. Consequently, the Russian government invited him to visit USSR but the suggested date coincided with the anniversary of Pakistan's independence. An alternative date was requested, which was never given by the Russians. See ‘Echoes of the Past’, a very detailed and well-researched article on this topic by Tariq Fatemi, former ambassador of Pakistan to EU, in Express Tribune. 

Myth No. 2: Liaquat accepted American aid.

I may not have looked hard enough but I am yet to see any document or even a specific reference for this widespread rumor. On the contrary, Liaquat is on record for denying this accusation many times in front of the press as well as on the floor of the constituent assembly. For instance, on the eve of his departure to USA, he was asked by a journalist whether he intended to borrow loan on the basis of Truman’s Point IV formula. Liaquat’s reply, published in newspapers, was, “I’m not going there with a hat in my hand.” Objectivity demands that his statements be upheld until some evidence is produced to the contrary.

Myth No. 3: Liaquat placed Pakistan under American influence.

This myth is circulated only among the least informed. In most books, even where Liaquat is mentioned only in passing, he is remembered as one of the most influential but tactful opponents of imperialism who not only managed to keep Pakistan non-aligned but also started taking some practical steps for creating an independent block of Muslim countries as the third alternative to the two super powers of those times. See 'The Foreign Policy of Liaquat Ali Khan' by Shahid Amin published in Dawn).

Myth No. 4: Liaquat Ali Khan turned Pakistan into a theocratic state / a secular state.

The fact that the same person is "accused" of both these "offences" should give us a clue about the depth and seriousness of this allegation. Secularists denounce him for having proposed the 'Objectives Resolution', in which it was admitted that Sovereignty belonged to God (and the fact that the resolution was passed by the majority of a democratically elected assembly is not of much relevance to these detractors). Supporters of theocracy denounce him for being a secular ruler. Neither of these contestants seem to be interested in mentioning that Liaquat Ali Khan categorically stated that he was committed to the ideal of an Islamic state, but that he believed that an Islamic state was not a theocratic state and it offered equal rights to non-Muslim citizens. His claims were corroborated by the constituent assembly when the draft constitution presented by the basic principles committee made non-Muslim citizens eligible for contesting the office of the prime minister. This principle was never revoked during Liaquat's lifetime.

List of further readings below video

The story of Pakistan in the voice of Liaquat Ali Khan:
Radio broadcast on the first anniversary
of independence, 1948 

Further reading:

• 'The Foreign Policy of Liaquat Ali Khan' by Shahid Amin
• 'Echoes of the Past' by Tariq Fatemi
• 'The Assassination of the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan: The Fateful Journey' by Syed Muhammad Zulqurnain Zaidi

Liaquat Ali Khan: Iqbal's Pakistan

The greatest evils of the modern world have been perpetrated in the name of nation and race, nations which are made by geographical boundaries and races which are made by the accident of the birth. In such a world Islam has a very great contribution to make, and I feel that if the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are able to establish an independent State they will be helping humanity to build a better and happier world order.

As Iqbal has pointed out, the Quran repeatedly lays emphasis on the history and Nature, these should be subjects of the deepest and most abiding interest for Muslims. We should study the history of peoples and nations to derive lessons for ourselves for the future and we should also build up an army of men and women engaged in the study and conquest of Nature.

Science has a most vital connection with the Islamic Movement; the Prophet said that ‘The pursuit of knowledge is the duty of every man and woman, among Muslims,’ and again, ‘Seek ye knowledge even if you have to go as far as China for it.’ And the most vital part of knowledge is knowledge of Nature which gives man power over her.

It is true that the detailed picture of the State which we Muslims seek to establish in the sub-continent is still to be drawn out but what I have said above is enough to show the direction in which our efforts should lie and the type of training that is essential for our people if we are to succeed in reaching our goal.

(Convocation Address delivered by Liaquat Ali Khan at Aligarh Muslim University, February 16, 1947)

Dual nationality of Pakistani parliamentarians

"A man can be loyal only to one country; a man can owe allegiance only to one State and anyone who tries to pose that he owes allegiance to more than one State is either deceiving himself or thinks that he can deceive others. And, therefore, Sir, to my mind, this is a very important condition that anyone who is to be a Member of this Constituent Assembly must owe allegiance to Pakistan and Pakistan alone." (Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Karachi, May 18, 1948).

Once again there is a debate in Pakistan about whether a person can hold dual nationality and still be a member of the country's parliament. Incidentally, the issue was settled quite conclusively in the days of the first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (1947-1951). A bill was passed against this practice.

The words quoted above were spoken by the founding Prime Minister on that occasion. Perhaps deliberately forgotten by many, they are somehow resonating now.

Parliamentarian Raza Hayat Hiraj, while introducing a similar bill in the National Assembly, said in April this year, "Those who take oath of loyalty to another country cannot safeguard the interests of Pakistan."

A recent article by journalist Khawar Ghumman's is also reminiscent of Liaquat's forgotten quote. The article 'Dual standards on dual nationality' in Dawn, October 21,begins with the question: "Would you trust somebody who has an exit plan to run your country?"

Independence Day: August 14 or 15?

On the morning of August 14, the last British Viceroy Mountbatten attended a ceremony at the Constituent Assembly Building (now the Sindh Assembly) in Karachi. There he “transferred the power” to the Governor-General designate Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the elected representatives of the people.

The nation had become independent but technically speaking, Pakistan was not yet born. The Viceroy flew off to New Delhi the same afternoon. The Union Jack was still flying in the Governor-General house when it was suggested to the Quaid that it should be removed now that British had left. He refused, since such discourtesy would have been beneath his dignity. Hence the British flag was brought down at its appointed hour of the sunset and not without due respect.

That sunset also marked the beginning of the 27^th of Ramadan – the “Night of Power”, which according to the Quran was better than a thousand nights, when angels and the Spirit descend on the earth in order to carry out every task under the direct command of the Creator. It was a night which, according to the Quran, is peace till the dawn. The Quran itself had been revealed on this night more than 1300 years ago.

The radio station of Lahore went on announcing itself as “All-India Radio” till shortly before midnight.

The birth of Pakistan was announced at the appointed hour, which was the midnight. The next morning, i.e. August 15 (Ramazan 27^th), the newspapers felicitated the people on the birth of an independent state. Quaid-i-Azam was sworn in as Governor-General. Liaquat Ali Khan took oath as Prime Minister. The flag of Pakistan was hoisted. The Quaid addressed the nation on radio. And, therefore, “the evening and the morning were the first day.”

The question then arose whether the “Independence Day” should be celebrated on August 14^th or 15^th in the future? My friend Aqeel Abbas Jafri tells me that he has seen in the national archives an official circular that was properly circulated the next year stating that although Pakistan came into being on August 15, it would be more appropriate if it celebrates its “Independence Day” on August 14, since the nation had technically become independent with the transfer of power by the last Viceroy.

This practice has been followed since 1948. Unfortunately there is no dearth of sensationalists who distort these facts in order to gain quick attention. They raise objections to the celebration of the Independence Day on August 14.

I almost became a victim to one myself when I read his book The Murder of History in Pakistan in the early 1990s. The author made much of the fact that Pakistan was born on August 15, and therefore it was wrong to celebrate the Independence Day on August 14. This author did not care to address some basic questions which any historian with a shred of self-respect would have tried to answer before raising the alarm: When was the date of the Independence Day changed to August 14? Who changed it, under what authority and was any reason given? Documents are available in the national archives and they leave no room for ambiguity.

The argument presented in The Murder of History in Pakistan has been picked up by countless other sensationalists. Neither of them has the self-respect to even raise these basic questions. We cannot say whether they fail to raise the questions because their real intention is not to set the record straight; they just feel sorry for having become independence, since they have been raised up with a slave mentality and therefore it hurts them when they see everybody else celebrating independence.

On our parts, it is our duty to know the facts. The people of Pakistan became independent on August 14, 1947 AD (Ramazan 26, 1366 AH). As an independent nation they themselves created Pakistan the next day, August 15, 1947 AD (Ramazan 27, 1366 AH). The birthday of Pakistan is August 15 just as the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah mentioned in his inaugural address to the nation that morning. The “Independence Day”, in all fairness, cannot be the same date. It has to be the day when power was transferred to us (at least to those of us who are willing to have it). That was August 14, 1947.

This is just one of the several questions that are shamelessly thrown at the patriotic Pakistanis, very often by some who know neither shame nor self-respect. End of the day, the answer to all such questions boils to down to one counter-question: Are you happy that you are free? Let’s stop at saying that an answer beginning with “Yes, but…” counts as “No.”

Postscript: My answer is “Yes”, and I hope that so is yours. Happy Independence Day, August 14, 2011.

Special announcement: August 14 next year will fall again on Ramazan 26. Once again, the night of the Independence Day will be the “Night of Power”.

A Message to America

With feelings, I send this message from my leader as my personal note of felicitation to American friends on the 4th of July.

I believe that your people earnestly desire peace. We, who have just begun to live, can hardly wish for annihilation to overtake us when we have not yet taken our first few breaths. What can we do to maintain peace in the world beyond keeping our own house in order? It seems to us in the East that only those who can make war can primarily maintain peace. If they are in earnest about it, is their way not clear?

When we find strong and powerful nations boldly defying aggression, we are heartened by their stand but we ask ourselves two questions:

• Firstly, is aggression to be defied only where we dislike the aggressor or is aggression to be defied in all its forms, big and small, and wherever it may appear? If the first, we will be doing no honor to democracy or justice or freedom but to the principle of biological survival. If the second, we will be serving the cause of freedom everywhere and giving hope to new nations.
• Secondly, is defiance, however stimulating it may be, enough? Are there not vast fields for constructive effort by which alone can enduring peace be built up?

Yours is a great country with enormous resources of wealth, experience and technical skill. We, who believe in individual initiative, effort and enterprise do not believe that the era of private ownership is over. But we do believe that we have entered upon an era when capital should come out of its shell and move in the spheres of international social objectives and move on from exploitation to production.

Your country fought for its own independence once. You have been great exponents and the jealous guardians of freedom. Words from your Declaration of Independence and your constitution have inspired men in far-off lands. You have shown to the world what human effort can do for human welfare. You have no colonies and I believe no territorial ambitions. Has not your history therefore equipped you more than most nations to be among the leading architects of the enlightened internationalism of the future?

We Asiatics in general and Pakistan in particular are waiting to see what your answer will be. We do not know what you will say but should you decide that construction is the best way to defy destruction, you will find the people of Pakistan amongst your staunchest friends.

I have spoken to you with great candor and from the depth of my heart for we are a simple and frank people as you are; we hold our freedom dear as you do and we love peace, if possible, even more than you do.

First PM of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan,
University of California, Berkeley, on May 16, 1950.

Are two women equal to one man?

Once again the question is in the air: Does the evidence of two women equal to that of one man in Islam? This time it started with a careless remark by parliamentarian Ishaq Dar belittling the Information Minister Sherry Rehman on October 17 (reported in Dawn).

We know where the debate is eventually going to lead: Verse 282 from Chapter 2 of the Quran. Like any other legal or religious text, that verse is also liable to interpretation and therefore the important question is who should decide which interpretation is to be adopted?

In Pakistan, the authority to decide in matters of religious interpretation (ijtehad) got delegated to the elected parliament on August 15, 1947. This is what I understand from the foundational documents of Pakistan. Though the point got obliterated after the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951, it can still be supported with substantial evidence. In other words, it is the people of Pakistan together (including non-Muslims) whose majority vote (or in some matters, consensus) decides which religious interpretation ought to be adopted.

On the particular issue of female witness the people gave their verdict when they elected Benazir Bhutto in Elections 1988. It is up to the intelligentsia and academics to articulate this discourse, if they choose.

Photo Credit: Pictures of Benazir Bhutto and Sherry Rehman are details from work by Sindhi32s and Ahsan respectively.

Remembering Liaquat Ali Khan

"Pakistan stands firm," said the first premiere of Pakistan in 1950, during his visit to the United States. "It stands firm because the Muslims who form the majority of its eighty million people have an ideology of their own which we call the Islamic way of life."

He went on to say:

"This is not a new ideology. It is a body of faith, tradition and belief, which has been a part of man’s heritage for over thirteen hundred years. We believe that this ideology when applied to statecraft and the conduct of human affairs is bound to promote human welfare. Let me tell you in a few simple and clear words what it is.

"There is first the belief in God and His supreme sovereignty. This does not mean either theocracy or medievalism. We do not believe in priesthood or in the caste system. We consider the first to be unnecessary, for God is as close to one human being as to another. We consider the second to be an abomination, for all men are equal.

"Individual effort and enterprise is the law of life with us as well as the belief that each man or woman is entitled to the fruits of his or her honest endeavor. The pivot of our economic doctrine is the right of private ownership but our laws and institutions have behind them the aim of reducing inequalities of wealth.

"We believe in democracy, that is to say in the right of people to be governed by their own chosen representatives; in social and economic justice and in equal opportunities for all citizens of whatever race or creed they may be.

"We do not have to present this ideology to our people as a new manifesto. The principles I have stated are part and parcel of Islam and when we say that we want to follow the Islamic way of life what we mean is that we could not possibly do otherwise."

I have scanned through writings of authors and leaders of Pakistan Movement but am yet to come across a passage which describes so comprehensively in so few words what Pakistan really meant to its founding generation. This is what it means to the masses even today but perhaps the problem is that some of us don’t know that this is the case.