Ideology Of Pakistan
 

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=5][B]IDEOLOGY OF PAKISTAN IN THE VIEW OF [/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]
[B]Ideology:[/B] is any thing kept before us in constant view as our deal. It means people's ideals,objectives or targets.
[B]The word ideology.[/B] Etymology (origin, formation and development of a word defines the word 'ideology' as Science of ideas; ideas or visionary speculation, system of ideas esp. concering social and political life. According to Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word ideology means the science of ideas, metaphysics, abstract speculation visionary speculation, body of ideas, way of thinking.
The word idiology formed from the word 'idea' means model conception, design, form figure, mental image, notion.
[B]ISLAM.[/B] Pakistan was founded in the basis of Islam. Islam is therefore, the ideology of Pakistan. According to the ideology of Pakistan sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allagh the Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people for being exercised within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust.
Islam is the first principle of Ideology of Pakistan, it is the basis of their both 'Nationalism' as well as 'Patriotism'. The nationhood in Pakistan is Islam. It is Islam on which the Indian Muslims (composed of Punjabis, Sindhis, Balichis, Pathans) united themselves. The quwstion of specific territory was a secondry consideration. Muslims all over the world are like one body. The Muslims are prepared to lay down their lives in native lands of Islam. And unlike Hindus they are not prepared to lay down their lives merely for Pakistan's deserts, mountains, trees their 'fatherland' and 'motherland'.
[B]Islam:[/B]the basis of secularism and constitutionalism. The second principle of ideology of Pakistan as laid down by [B]Quaid-e-Azam[/B] is that Islam is the basis of their secularism as well as conmstitutionalism.
[B]Secularism:[/B] The belief that the state, morals, education etc. should be independent of religion. On february 19, 1948 in his broadcat the Quaid-e-Azam proclaimed:
"make to mistake. Pakistan is not theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we wellcome in closest association with us all those who, of whatever creed, are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan"
The Islamic State of Pakistan according to the Quaid-e-Azam embraces the qualities of an ideal secular state. Secular States means a state which guarantees religious freedom to every citizen and which whithout distinction of religion or race tries to promote the material advancement and welfare of all citizens. On August 11, 1947 in his famous presidential address to the Constituent Assembly the Quaid-e-Azam proclaimed:
" You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, or caste and creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State we are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of One State............Now i think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time Hindus and Muslims would ceas to be Hindus and Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the State".
In this State every citizen is granted the right of religious freedom. Shias, Sunnis, Wahabis and so many other sacts of Islam, Hindus, Parsis, Christians, Buddhists and their nemerous sects are free to profess their respective personal codes of law. In Islamic theology the 'Mazhab' means personal faith, view point or path, whereas 'Din' means a body of those universal principles of Islam which are applicable to the entire humanity. These universal principles are that sovereignty belongs to God alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan through its people to be exercised within limits prescribed by Him; that the authority delegated to the State is a sacred trust; that the State must endeavour to achieve teh ideas of equality, solidarity, freedom and justice among all its citizens; that its constitution must be democratic, for it must exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people; that it must guarantee man's inalienable and fundamental rights of status and of opportunity, equality before law, freedom of thiught, expression, belief, faith, worship, association, assembly, movement, trade, business or profession and the right to hold and dispose of property, subject to law and public morality, that it must secure the complete independence of the judiciary and upholds supremacy of rule of law. All these principles are directly traceable to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.
(continue......)

Salaam,

I appreciate your efforts. Finally, you're doing something constructive. I like this post.

I wonder if you could also present other's point of views i.e. Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed and others.

Regards,
Adil Memon

PS: Did you write it yourself?

The ideology of Pakistan
 

[B]The ideology of Pakistan [/B]
By Farooq Ahmed :snor

The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but are two social orders and have given birth to two distinct cultures and that there is no meeting point between the two. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims are not confined to the struggle for political supremacy but are also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than one thousand years, they continue to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, all are poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dress they wear are entirely different.

The ideology of Pakistan took shape through an evolutionary process. Historical experience provided the base; Allama Iqbal gave it a philosophical explanation; Quaid-i-Azam translated it into a political reality; and the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, by passing Objectives Resolution in March 1949, gave it legal sanction. It was due to the realization of the Muslims of South Asia that they are different from the Hindus that they demanded separate electorates. However when they realized that their future in a ‘Democratic India’ dominated by Hindu majority was not safe, they changed their demand to a separate state.

The Muslims of South Asia believe that they are a nation in the modern sense of the word. The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial nor racial or linguistic or ethnic rather they are a nation because they belong to the same faith, Islam. On the same plea they consider it their fundamental right to be entitled to self-determination. They demanded that the areas where they were in majority should be constituted into a sovereign state, wherein they could be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings of Holy Quran and Sunnah of Holy Prophet (SAW). They further want their state to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries.

As early as in the beginning of the eleventh century Al Behruni observed that Hindus were differed from the Muslims in all matters and usage. He further elaborated his argument by writing that the Hindus considered Muslims ‘Mlachha’ i.e. impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any other bond of relationship, or by sitting, eating and drinking with them, because thereby, they think they be polluted. The speech made by Quaid-i-Azam at Minto Park, Lahore on March 22, 1940 was very similar to Al Behruni’s thesis in theme and tune. He, in this speech, considered that Hindus and Muslims belongs to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. He emphasized that inspite of passage of about one thousand years the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not become even friendly. The only difference between the writing of Al-Behruni and the speech of Quaid-i-Azam was that Al-Behruni made calculated predictions, while Quaid-i-Azam had history behind him to support his argument.

The Ideology of Pakistan has its roots deep in history. History of South Asia is largely a history of rivalry and conflict between the Hindus and Muslims of the region. Both communities have been living in the same area since the early eighth century, the advent of Islam in India. Yet, the two failed to develop harmonious relations. In the beginning one could find the Muslims and Hindus struggling for supremacy in the battlefield. Starting with the war between Muhammad Bin Qasim and Raja Dahir in 712, armed conflicts between Hindus and Muslims run in thousands. Clashes between Mahmud of Ghazna and Jaypal, Muhammad Ghuri and Pirthvi Raj, Babur and Rana Sangha and Aurangzeb and Shiva Jee are a case in point.

When Hindus of South Asia failed to establish Hindu Padshahi through force, they opted for back door conspiracies. Bhagti Movement with the desire to merge Islam and Hinduism was one of the biggest attacks on the Ideology of the Muslims of the region. Diversion of Akbar from the main stream Islamic Ideology was a great success of the Hindus. However, due to the immediate counter attack by Mujadid Alf-i-Sani and his pupil, this era proved to be a short one. Muslims once again proved their separate identity during the regimes of Jahangir, Shah Jehan and particularly Aurangzeb. The attempts to bring the two communities close could not succeed because the differences between the two are fundamental and have no meeting point. At the root of the problem lies the difference between the two religions. So long as the two people want to lead their lives according to their respective faith they cannot be one.

With the advent of the British rule in India in 1858, Hindu-Muslim relations entered into a new phase. The British brought with them a new political philosophy commonly known as territorial nationalism. Before the coming of the British there was no concept of nation in the South Asia and the region had been never a single political unit. However, the British desire to weld the two communities in to a ‘nation’ failed. The British concept of nation did not fit in the religio-social system of South Asia. Similarly the political system which the British had acquired from their experience in Britain did not suite the political culture of South Asia. The British political system commonly known as ‘Democracy’ gave majority the right to rule. But unlike Britain the basis of majority and minority in South Asia was not political but religious and ethnic.

The attempt to enforce the British model in South Asia, instead of solving the political problems, further made it complex. The Hindus supported the idea while it was strongly opposed by the Muslims. The Muslims knew that implementation of the new order would mean the end of their separate identity and endless rule on Hindu majority in the name of Nationalism and democracy. No wonder the Muslims refused to go the British way. They claimed that they were a separate nation and the basis of their nation was common religion Islam. They refused to except a political system, which would reduce them to a permanent minority. They first demanded separate electorates and latter a separate state. Religious and cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims increased due to political rivalry under the British rule.

On March 24, 1940 the Muslims finally abundant the idea of federalism and defined separate homeland as their target. Quaid-i-Azam considered the creation of Pakistan a means to an end and not the end in itself. He wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic and Democratic state. According to his wishes and in accordance with the inspirations of the people of Pakistan the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan passed Objective Resolution. The adoption of Objectives Resolution removed all doubts if there were any about the ideology of Pakistan. The Muslims of Pakistan decided once for all to make Pakistan a state wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in their individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

It is actually very easy to boost about the contributions of Muslim leaders in the "evolutionary development" of the "ideology of Pakistan". It is very difficult however to prove the existence of any such thing as "ideology" of Pakistan even during the period of freedom struggle. Ghandi was doing struggle for "independence" whereas Qaid-e-Azam was doing struggle for "separation". This is a fact that whatever was that "ideology", it was just a symbol of "weakness" of Muslim nation in the sub-continent. It's only real meaning was just that Muslims were afraid of the Hindu majority in the anticipated un-divided independent India. During the course of "separation struggle", this ideiology was not any kind of philosophy. It was just a slogan. This slogan evolved in that overall environment which was fearfull for the Muslim nation. Any positive aspect of this "idiology", very realistically and frankly speaking, cannot be sufficiently proved. It is said that Muslims wanted a separate homeland where they could freely practice their religion. This desire of Muslims is actually another sign of their own weakness. It's meaning is that Islam is such a religion which cannot be freely practiced in a non-Muslim state. If this meaning is right then we should assume that Muslims of present day India are not freely practicing their religion. If the only purpose for the establishment of Pakistan was just to ensure that Muslims of sub-continent should freely practice their religion, and since we are "assuming" that Muslims of present day India cannot freely practice their religion then we should accept its ultimate consequence which is that then now our independent state of Pakistan should open it's doors for all the Mulims of the present day India. All the Indian Muslims should be given citizenship of Pakistan. Then all those "alien citizens" also should be allowed entrence into Pakistan. After having entered into Pakistan, those citizes of Pakistan should not be given any place to live in. Also they should not be provided any Economic oppertunity. The only oppertunity they deserve is that they should only be allowed to "freely practice" their religion. Now anyone who has "text book" ideology of Pakistan in his hand, should make above mentioned offer to all the Muslim citizens of India. This offer should be considered as practical experiment for testing the validity of our "text book" ideology of Pakistan. If majority Muslims of the present day India accept this offer, only then the validity of the "text book ideology" can be confirmed.

And dear CSS candidates, you have the ambitions to get the control of the affairs of the state of Pakistan in your hands. I am not against the establishment of Pakistan. The only thing I am showing here is that you people shall become the "policy makers" of this state. The policies you will make shall be based on limited and one sided information which is mentioned in only few "secred" text books. If you do any critical analysis of the so called "ideology of Pakistan", you shall be fail in the exam. If you possess only rote based knowledge of some text books on the history of Pakistan, then you shall pass the exam but would not be able to run the affairs of the state on the basis of any rational and critical analysis. If you possess very good critical analytical ability, but you prefer attempting the exam in non-critical style i.e. in such a style in which you shall be just boosting about some un-real contributions of Muislim leaders, then you shall pass the exam but you shall not be honest in this way.

I also know it that role of a CSP officer is not of any critical analyzer. He is just to make detailed policies as per the directions of "incompetent" political heads of the state and he is just to implement those policies. Political heads are obviously "incompetents" because they do not pass any exam. The CSP officers are "competents" because after all they pass the exam. They are really "competents" because although they possess all the critical analytical abilities, but they become good followers of text book contents in the exam. So they are not only "competents", they are also "realistics". After all the realistic approach that a "competent" person chooses is to just that he follows one sided text book ideology. He is realistic because he realistically does not show his critical analytical abilities in the exam because he knows that he shall fail in this way. But obviously this "competent" and "relist" person cannot be considered to be "honest" also.

And there is another issue also. If "honest" persons are given the control over the affairs of State, then ...... ??? This is my question to the candidates. So I ask you people what you think about this...? Can this type of "honest" people shall not be "harmful" for the stateb ... because after all, this type of "honest" person can, at any time take the side of "truth" instead of taking side of some "benefit" of the state. So this is a question mark. I shall appreciate analytical answer...!

Though my reply is “years” late, nevertheless, it’s never too late.


Nothing is truer than the “creation” of “ideology” after independence. Suffice it to say that all the torchbearers of Islam (all ulemas) were against the creation of an independent state. They had their loyalties with Congress. “Muslim unity” had been forged during the pre-independence phase. Ideologies were contrived as to clamor the need of creation of a separate state synonymous to “survival” of Islam. “Pakistan- a citadel of Islam”. There is a marked difference between Islam and Muslims, keeping in context the pursuance of inception. Well, since you have already replied it with sufficient arguments, I don’t want to add much.


Honesty and policy making can never get together. Even it is true for western countries where governments have to adopt circumvent approach while making an ostensible decision [though the extent of employing pretexts is limited to an extent]. Having a realistic attitude doesn’t necessarily make you an honest man. Competency lies in making effective policies with due consideration to “national interests”, interests as defined by the regime.


And if (God forbids) an honest person takes the reins of state, he would cause great havoc to the system (that has vested interests in status quo). He would be a threat to feudalism. But apart from sarcasm, you need to have a tint of diplomacy even for the sake of national interests where you have to put your honesty at stake. But that is strictly in terms of national interests. At least, my conscience does allow me to that extent. But I wonder what if you have to put humanity on stake for national interests. But guess state doesn’t need the adherents of “universal love”.

Website of Pak-Affairs
 

Follow a good website for Pak-Affairs.
[url]http://storyofpakistan.com/default.asp[/url]