A lot of people in my opinion, exaggerate the ‘Islamic threat’ posed by Pakistan. A lot of people sneer and look disparagingly at Pakistan’s Islamization. A lot of people think extremists will 'take over the central government of Pakistan.' In my opinion, yes extremism has increased in Pakistan, but it is MORE to do with the current events post 2001 in our western neighbor and its effects being felt here than Pakistan's 'policy of Islamization' (which obviously plays a role as well, but not as much as Afghanistan's destabilization contributes). I believe the Islamization of Pakistan served as a mere tool of unification than 'the actual implementation of Shariah Law'. Although the Blasphemy Law and the Hadood Ordinance were brought in by Zia (parts of Hadood Ordinance were amended, hopefully Blasphemy Law too will undergo that in the future), Pakistan has never really been an 'Islamic society' on any kind of level in any part of its history.
A lot of people also think it started from Zia-ul-Haq’s time. It reached an all-time peak in Zia’s time, but the seeds were sowed in the 1950’s in the 1956 Constitution for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It was really brought into action during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s time, where Ahmedis were declared non-Muslims constitutionally in 1973 and Pakistan started working on the ‘Muslim nuclear bomb’. It reached an all-time high during Zia’s time, when Saudi Arabia and USA along with Pakistan hosted ‘Wahabi’ Mujahideen camps that fought the Soviets: but the seeds of ‘Islamization’ were sowed earlier.
Was Pakistan wrong to ‘Islamize’? Should it have embraced a secular democracy, a model India did? The answer could be yes or no. Pakistan and India are ‘artificial’ countries. Before 1947, many states of India were ruled by their separate rulers, had separate languages, customs. Pakistan and India formed very fragmented countries in 1947. A lot of Indians and Western people sneer at Pakistan’s Islamization, and look up to India’s secular democracy. Both were right and wrong in their own ways. Pakistan and India took two very different paths in governance, and are seeing different results today.
Why did Pakistan Islamize? Because Pakistan felt it had to unify the Pakhtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis, Muhajirs in some way. They were culturally and ethnically different in every way, religion was the glue that stuck them together. Afghanistan and Afghani Pashtuns have always looked down on Pakistan and Pakistani Pakhtuns in a dream for ‘Pashtunistan’, Pakistani Balochis have always been dreaming of reuniting with their Iranian Balochi brothers, the Muhajirs & other immigrants always had a complex leaving their Indian homeland in 1947. Both Pakhtuns and Balochis are considered to be ‘puppets’ of the Punjabis, the people that ‘actually rule Pakistan’. Religion (and the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’
was a means of homogenization, the glue that stuck these different ethnicities together.
After 1971, with Pakistan losing its huge chunk of territory, I believe the Pakistani establishment started used Islam as a unification tool (& a means to get back at India), as a means to appease and unify the different ethnicities together, seeing that Balochistan and NWFP might follow East Pakistan to form independent nations from ‘Punjabized’ Pakistan. And despite a lot of problems Pakistan faces today, a recent Gallup poll in Pakistan conducted over various parts of Pakistan concluded that “The nation-state is of great significance to Pakistanis, and despite important ethnic and regional differences, national identity is strong throughout the country. Overall, 89% say they think of themselves first as Pakistani, rather than as a member of their ethnic group.” I believe that in India, most (or a lot) people consider their ethnic identity over their national identity.
India took a riskier and bolder approach of a secular democracy, which caused (and is still causing) it great distress in terms of unification and uneven ‘fortunes’ in its different states (for e.g, compare Gujarat with UP, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa etc), but it is also reaping its rewards. But despite its economic boom, it still has over 450 million people living below the Indian poverty line of $1.25. It still has over 130 separatist insurgency movements, while Pakistan has 4, coming from Balochistan. The separatist movements in the 7 sister states, the rise of Maoists from Orissa-West Bengal all the way to Maharashtra-Andhra Pradesh and even parts of Tamil Nadu shows the risks of the ‘lack of homogenization and unification’ India has implemented by following the secular democracy model. Pakistan has in the past even managed to cause havoc in Indian administered Kashmir by using Islam and Muslim identity. Bangladesh is said to be causing havoc in NE India with its 'Islamization' as well.
Pakistan has (rightly or wrongly) appeased to the wishes of the Pakhtuns, giving them the right to self governance in FATA (which is now a huge problem for Pakistan), and even renamed NWFP as Khyber Pakhtunkhwan, which has hurt the sentiments of other minority groups in the province (such as Hazaras, Tajiks, Kalashas, Chitralis) to say the least. But as a result, there are no separatist movements in Khyber Pakhtunkhwan at the moment. But there is a problem of Islamic terrorism in the FATA region, as well as the risk of increasing extremism across the other parts of Pakistan; which is not really seen as much in India.
By adopting the secular democratic model, India is less prone to religious Islamic extremism, despite it having a whooping 130+ million Muslims in the country. It also results in a more diverse, free society accepting to minorities that focuses on development (a work in progress). But it also results in a more fragmented society in my opinion. India might have taken the riskier approach, but the greater risks one takes, the more rewards they get. Time will tell what the fate of Pakistan and India is.
Pakistani Public Opinion | Pew Global Attitudes Project
