Some time ago, an English newspaper published an article captioned as 12 March: the death of Jinnahs Pakistan. Besides the fact that the said caption left a bad taste in the readers mouth, the write-up was a travesty of common sense and logic, dotted with historical errors and raised on a tangled rationale that had little respect for facts. Under the ordinary circumstances I would have ignored the write-up but since it talked about the Objectives Resolution, Article 2-A of our Constitution, I feel obliged to clear the web of deception created by the lady columnist. In the following, I summarize her main points so that I could subsequently address myself to them. According to her: The 1947 Constitution Assembly lacked representational character. The Objectives Resolution was opposed by the minority members and the secular Muslim members of the assembly. Jinnahs right hand man Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan betrayed the formers guiding principles given to the Constitution Assembly by presenting the Objectives Resolution to the assembly. The 1940 resolution of the Muslim League made no reference to Islamic system. The session of the Constitution Assembly started with the recitation of the Quran while in Jinnahs life it never happened. Jinnah was opposed to theocracy. The Objectives Resolution was adopted by the Muslim League because of the pressure that came from the Leagues historical baggage that had portrayed itself as the sole representative of all the Muslims ..., thus losing the ability to talk against religious considerations openly... These are the main planks of her write up. You said Jinnah was opposed to theocracy. I have also read his speeches made during the 1940s. In these speeches he continuously speaks about Islamic polity, Islamic law, Islamic governance and so forth. My answers: If Jinnah was against theocracy, then why did he talk of Islamic polity and law? His Aug 11 speech (with all the spin given to it) is after all just one of his speeches. Would it be academically and logically correct to make it as the sole source of his thought? If thats the case where would you place his post-Aug 11 speeches in which he again stresses the role of Islam in state and nation building? In that case what place would you give to his last day speeches after his Aug 11 speech? You also talked about the Objectives Resolution passed in the face of opposition to Hindu minority? Do you think the Pakistan movement was launched to placate the Hindu minority ignoring the aspirations of the Muslims Islamic or non-Islamic notwithstanding? Do you think in democratic societies laws are passed unanimously with no opposition from any quarter? Has any minority the right to oppose the sovereign will of the majority? Does the Objectives Resolution ignore mentioning the minority rights and their safeguard? You imply that the Objectives Resolution was passed after Jinnahs death. Do you mean no law should have been passed after his death? Or that he alone had the right to make legislation? Your answer will help me and others to evaluate the situation in a better way. Tarik Jan, Islamabad, August 30.