Competing Interpretations of Islam and Women's Political Rights in Pakistan's Constitution-Making Process (1947–1956)

Abstract

This article examines how competing liberal-modernist and traditionalist interpretations of Islam formed the early constitutional debates on women's political rights in Pakistan (1947–1956). While existing scholarship has largely examined later constitutional reforms, legal developments, and women’s political representation. However, a little attention has been paid to the formative ideological debates that shaped the constitutional foundations of women’s citizenship. Drawing documentary analysis of Constituent Assembly debates, reports of the Board of Ta'limat-i-Islamia, constitutional documents, and contemporary political writings, the paper identifies two competing constitutional perspectives. It argues that the constitutional contest was not between Islam and secularism but between competing interpretations of Islam: liberal-modernist leaders such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan pressed for constitutional democracy and equal citizenship, while traditionalist religious scholars defended gender-differentiated roles grounded in established juristic interpretation. These opposing views shaped the constitutional language of citizenship and the trajectory of women’s political rights.