Basic Principles

Committee

The Basic Principles Committee (BPC)

was a specialized committee set up in
March 1949 by Khawaja Nazimuddin on
the advice of prime minister Liaquat Ali
Khan. The committee's sole purpose was
to determine the basic underlying
principles that would determine future
constitutions and legislature in
Pakistan.[1]
Initial recommendations and proposals
suggested by the BPC were strongly
criticized in the local media and the
public. Much of the criticism came from
East Pakistan where the committee
proposals were said to be subversive of
the ideology of Pakistan, under-
representing the majority province and
neglecting the Bengali language
thoroughly in the constitutional and
legislative process. The suggestion of
the formation of a religious oversight
board was also seen as "undemocratic
[and] an insult to Islam".

Formation
Before the first constituent assembly of
Pakistan could formulate any
constitution or legislature, it was
necessary to put in order the basic
principles that would determine how the
constitution should be framed. On 7
March 1949, the Objectives Resolution
was presented, which serves to this day
as the ground norm for constitutional
process in Pakistan. The resolution was
adopted by the constituent assembly on
12 March 1949, when 21 members voted
for it.[2]

The Basic Principles Committee (BPC)

was formed on the same day by the
constituent assembly. The committee
was set up by governor-general Khawaja
Nazimuddin upon advice from Prime
Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. It was
presided over by Maulvi Tamizuddin
Khan with Liaquat Ali Khan serving also
as its vice-president. The committee had
24 other members, though not all were
members of the constituent assembly as
well.[3]

The purpose of the BPC was to

formulate the basic principles based on
the Objectives Resolution using which
the future constitutions of Pakistan
would be framed. The committee was
asked to propose basic principles and
concerned recommendations that would
help the constituent assembly with their
constitutional and legislative tasks. In
order to do so, the committee had its
initial two meetings in April 1949 where
three distinct sub-committees were
formed to deal with specialized tasks:

A subcommittee to deal with matters

of federal and provincial constitution
and distribution of powers;
A subcommittee to deal with matters
of adult franchise; and,
A subcommittee to deal with matters
of the judiciary.

First proposal
The BPC presented its initial report to the
constituent assembly on 28 September
1950. The main features presented in the
report were also simultaneously
published in an article in the Dawn
newspaper a day later,[4] ushering strong
criticism from the public, particularly
from critics in East Pakistan.[5]

Salient features

The report called for the state of

Pakistan to be a federation where Urdu
was to be the state language. It also
formally recognized the Objectives
Resolution as an integral part of the
constitution of Pakistan and the
legislative process, suggesting that the
resolution should be incorporated into
the constitution as "a directive principle
of [state] policy".[6]

The report also presented a suggestion

for the central legislature was to be a
bicameral with an upper house
consisting of 100 members, and a lower
house consisting of 400 members. The
upper house was to be elected by the
provincial legislature serving as the
representative institution of the
provinces, while the lower house was to
be elected by the people on the basis of
adult franchise. The tenure of both
houses was to be five years with both
enjoying equal power. The decisions
regarding budget or monetary bills were
to be decided in joint sessions of the two
houses.

The head of state was to be elected by a

joint session of the two houses for a
term of five years working on the advice
of the prime minister. The federal
legislature would have the authority to
remove the head of state. The head of
state was given added powers like the
authority to abrogate the constitution
and issue ordinances.

Each province would have its own

legislature elected on the basis of adult
franchise for a term of five years. The
head of the provincial legislature was to
be elected by the head of state for a term
of five years working on the advice of the
chief minister.

The Supreme Court was to be the head

of judiciary consisting of a chief justice
and 2 to 6 judges. It was suggested to
establish High Courts for each province.

It was also the first time that the

establishment of a religious oversight
board was suggested. A board of ulema
(religious scholars) was suggested to be
appointed by the head of state and
provincial governors to examine the
processes of law-making ensuring those
laws to be in accordance with the Quran
and the Sunnah.

Legislative power was to be divided into

three lists:

Federal list, comprising 67 subjects on

which the central legislature would
legislate;
Provincial list, comprising 35 items on
which the provincial legislature would
legislate; and,
Concurrent list, comprising 37 items
on which both the central and
provincial legislatures had the
authority to legislate.
The residuary powers were vested in the
centre.

The procedure to amend the constitution

was made very rigid. It required majority
approval from the central and provincial
legislatures. In case of any dispute, the
Supreme Court would have the authority
to interpret the constitution.

Reaction and criticism

These initial recommendations raised a

firestorm of protest. It was called
reactionary, undemocratic, an insult to
Islam, smacking of fascist approach,
subversive of the ideology of Pakistan
and a gross betrayal of the solemn
pledges made to the people.[7] In
particular, the report was highly criticized
by Sris Chandra Chattopadhyay who
observed that East Pakistan, being more
populous than West Pakistan, would be
under-represented if both were given an
equal number of seats in the upper
house. This would have effectively
rendered the eastern province a
minority.[8] Bengali critics also voiced
concern over making Urdu the national
language while thoroughly neglecting the
Bengali language from the constitutional
arena. There was also criticism of the
proposals for a strong centre with vast
powers on financial matters.
On 4 October 1950, in an editorial
published in the Nawa-i-Waqt, the report
was called a "charter of people's slavery".

Amidst furious criticisms, Liaquat Ali

Khan refrained from considering the
report and invited the committee to
present revised proposals and
suggestions. He also called for general
suggestions and comments from the
public in order to incorporate public
opinion. Another special sub-committee
was formed therein to facilitate such
measures. This sub-committee was
headed by Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and
later presented a revised report in the
constituent assembly in July 1952.
Second proposal
In light of the criticism received for the
first proposal, the committee moved
towards including greater participation
of public opinion into their successive
report to the constituent assembly. An
interim draft for a second report of the
BPC had been finalized by the third week
of November and was to be presented to
the Constituent Assembly on 23
November 1952. Its presentation was
however postponed at the very last
minute due to reservations held by some
members of the committee.[9]
The BPC held a meeting on 19 December
1952 where the final draft for the second
proposal was signed. But, in the
conspicuous absence of Mumtaz
Daultana, Nurul Amin, Begum Jahanara
Shahnawaz, A.H. Gardezi, Justice Abdul
Rashid and Maulana Mohammad Akram
Khan, the report was signed by Malik
Shaukat Ali signed it conditionally. The
report was presented to the assembly on
22 December 1952.

Salient features

The main features of the committee's

second report focused prominently on
the place of Islam in the future
constitution of Pakistan. The Objective
Resolution was adopted as a preamble
to the proposed constitution and the
principles defined therein were to guide
the state.

With Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar at the

helm of the committee, the second
proposal adopted a more Islamic stance.
Some suggest it merely contained
"religious rhetoric".[6] A specific clause
was added to the proposal which laid
down procedures to prevent any
legislation that is made outside the
limits prescribed in the Quran and the
Sunnah. It was suggested that existing
laws be also brought in conformity with
the Islamic principles.[10] The report
emphasized the importance of a board
of ulema that would vet legislation to
make sure that it was in keeping with the
teachings of Islam.[3] The committee
also recommended that the head of
state be a Muslim and that separate
electorates be maintained for Muslims
and non-Muslims.

During the debate concerning the

proposition of the head of state being a
Muslim, Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan
observed that the provision was
undeniably against fundamental rights.
He said, "I presume the country’s
population to be 85 percent Muslim and
if a Muslim cannot be returned as a
Head of State with an 85% Muslim
population where a Hindu is returned
with a minority of only 15%, then that
Hindu must be a saint."[11]

Reaction and criticism

The modernists denounced the

suggestion to create boards of ulemas
as a "surrender to mullahism" and a
"statutory recognition of priesthood
[designed to create a] medieval theocracy
in the twentieth century." In a series of
letters appearing in The Pakistan Times,
critics condemned such proposals
stating the boards would become "super
legislatures" where "regular priestly class
[would be] eager to take part in politics by
virtue of their being members of that
class [alone]".[7]

There was even more criticism

surrounding the inclusion of religious
rhetoric in the committee's proposals
especially in the formation of the board
of ulema; critics called such initiatives
"undemocratic [and] an insult to Islam".
Nawa-i-Waqt defended the suggestion of
creating the board as being "utterly
democratic".[12] On 31 December 1952,
Dawn newspaper expressed concern
that the committee may have exceeded
the limits prescribed in the Objectives
Resolution.[13]

Citations
1. "Basic Principles Committee" (http://www.
storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid
=A136) . Story of Pakistan. Retrieved
19 December 2013.
2. "Parliamentary History" (http://www.na.go
v.pk/en/content.php?id=75) . National
Assembly of Pakistan. Retrieved
19 December 2013.
3. Rehman (1982)
4. Rehman (1982, p. 13)
5. See Pakistan Observer, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12 & 17
October 1950, for detailed public reaction
to the report.
 6. "Bars to amendment" (http://www.dawn.c
om/news/833397/) . Dawn. Retrieved
19 December 2013.
7. Rehman (1982, p. 34)
8. Ziring (2003, p. 54)
9. Rehman (1982, p. 29)
10. Ghazali (1996, ch. 3, p. 2, The First Islamic
Republic (http://ghazali.net/book1/Chapt
er3a/page_2.html) )
11. Constituent Assembly Debates.
Constituent Assembly of Pakistan,
Government of Pakistan. 13 October
1953, cited in Ghazali (1996, ch. 3, p. 2.)
12. An article in Nawa-i-Waqt. 26 December
1952.
13. An article in Dawn Newspaper. 31
December 1952.
References
Ghazali, Abdus Sattar (1996). Islamic
Pakistan, Illusions and Reality: A
comprehensive and detailed political
history of Pakistan (1st ed.).
Islamabad: National Book Club.
LCCN 97930581 (https://lccn.loc.gov/
97930581) .
Rehman, Inamur (1982). Public Opinion
and Political Development in Pakistan.
Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Ziring, Lawrence (2003). Pakistan: At
the Crosscurrent of History (https://arc
hive.org/details/pakistanatcrossc000
0ziri) . Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
ISBN 1851683275.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Basic_Principles_Committee&oldid=113288
3187"

This page was last edited on 11 January 2023, at

02:03 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless
otherwise noted.