PROJECT

NAME:Syeda Simrah Noor

REG NO:159-FMS/BSAF/F 17
PROGRAM: BS A&F
BATCH: 5
SUBJECT: Pakistan Studies
TEACHER: Mam Gul Ayesha
 Q:1
Did Quaid e Azam envision Pakistan as a Shariah state or a secular democratic state?

Answer

Shariah State by definition:

Shariah state has been derived from the term shariah law which means Islamic or muslim law.
A shahria State is a state which is ruled under Islamic law and the justice is provided according
to the Islamic rules and regulations either rcivil or criminal.

Secular Democratic state by definition:

A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially

neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also
claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential
treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/non-religion over other religions/non-religion.
Secular states do not have a state religion or an equivalent, although the absence of an
established state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular in all respects.
For example, many secular states have religious references in their national anthems and flags.
Preface:

Jinnah never wrote a book, he never even wrote any article or pamphlet to elaborate what was
his vision for Pakistan. All the evidence we have is from his speeches, statements, letters and
memories of those who met him personally and as we know none of the evidence is fully
trustworthy.

This is a topic that has been extensively discussed and debated over the years. All parties are
able to provide valid evidence to support their stance on the argument and the matter has never
been fully settled. While this will always be a case for MA Jinnah’s stance on the issue is
without doubt ambiguous and hence open to contrasting variations

How Quaid envisaged Pakistan:

On Quaids’s birthday, PM Khan tweeted, “Quaid envisaged Pakistan as a democratic, just

and compassionate nation. Most importantly he wanted our minorities to be equal citizens.
It should be remembered that his early political career was as an ambassador for Hindu-
Muslim unity”.

Khan further tweeted, “His struggle for a separate nation for Muslims only started when he
realized that Muslims would never be treated as equal citizens by a Hindu majority. Naya
Pak is Quaid’s Pak & we will ensure that our minorities are treated as equal citizens, unlike
what is happening in India”.
Quaid’s envision as shariah state:

Pakistan was meant to be an Islamic polity, a country destined to be ruled according to Islamic
sharia. Jinnah’s several speeches anchored in Islamic imagery. In his speech on March 23,
1940, the historic session of the Muslim League during which the resolution for the creation of
Pakistan was passed, Jinnah remarked:

“The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social
customs and literatures. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other.”

On March 22, 1940, in strong communal language, Jinnah opposed any independence that

bestowed a permanent minority status on Muslims. On 14 AUGUST, 1947 first

anniversary of Pakistan Quaid said

“I have full faith in my People that they will rise to every occasion worthy of our past
Islamic History Glory and Traditions”

Quaid’s envision as a secular democratic state:

Speaking in the wake of MacDonald’s communal award in August 1932, Jinnah viewed
Indo-Muslim differences through a political prism only. He said

“Religion should not enter politics, this is a question of minorities and it is a political
issue,”

Jinnah observed. Similarly, on August 11, 1947, in his presidential address to the constituent
assembly of Pakistan in Karachi, Jinnah said,

“You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business
of the state. Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be 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,”

Outcomes:

Leading us astray, these messages lead us to a confused Pakistan. The issue that even after the
passage of many years we could not decide what was Quaid-e-Azam’s concept of Pakistan.
This is because we confuse Jinnah’s purpose and his means to achieve it. In fact, the founding
father’s objective was the creation of a Muslim majority state where the community’s socio-
economic and political interests could be secured. The means he adopted to realize his goal
were often conflicting and contradictory. Since Muslims were a disparate lot and welding them
together required Jinnah to deliberately employ vague, ambivalent and often contradictory
messages.

Conclusion:

In my opinion, Jinnah had envisioned a pluralist Pakistan, one where, irrespective of one’s
religious position, one would be the equal citizen of Pakistan. Jinnah, like many other Muslim
leaders of the subcontinent who strived for the creation of a new state comprising the Muslim
majority areas, was a modernist. He envisaged Pakistan as a combination of Shariah and
Secular democratic state. As we can see that his past speeches show his approach towards
shariah as well as Islamic democratic state.

Q:2
What kind of system (Islamic or secular democratic) should we have in Pakistan in the
prevailing situation?

Answer
I believe that in Pakistan we should have a democratic system. Although this could be a great
debate that Pakistan was made in the name of Islam and that it should be run according to the
principles of Islam. There are five common types of political systems in the world:

 Democracy.
 Republic.
 Monarchy.
 Communism.
 Dictatorship.

Most of the countries in the world follow the democratic system. Out of all five, Democracy
and Dictatorship are the common ones. Pakistan has experienced both kinds of the systems.
Pakistan has lived an era of Dictatorship. Following were the famous dictators that have ruled
over Pakistan:

 Ayub Khan
 Yahya khan
  Zia-ul-haq
 Pervaiz musarraf

No doubt that Pakistan has gained quite much progress in the military rule or dictatorship but
there are many cons of dictatorship.

Cons of Dictatorship:

1. Dictators have the first priority of staying in power for as long as possible.
2. Dictatorships can change the laws at any time.
3. Dictators rarely allow for opposition to exist in their country.
4. The targets of dictators are usually innocent people.
5. The targets of dictators are usually innocent people.
6. It is a system of government that typically reduces productivity.
7. Personal rights are severely restricted in dictatorships.
8. Dictators rule through fear more than they do through successful political processes.
9. This form of government isolates the leadership and nation from the rest of the world.
10. The people have no control over the leadership of their country.
11. Many dictatorships are run through the military.

Pros of Democracy:

Democracy has always been a best way to run a country, as in a democratic system all the
people of a country have equal rights and are treated equally. Pakistan currently has a
democratic system and in my opinion it should have a democratic system in future as well. In
dictatorship some communities, provinces and people of a nation remain neglected which cause
a rebellious movement among those groups of people. There is a great example of such an
event i.e; the LIBERATION MOVEMENT by the people of Balochistan in the realm of
Pervaiz Mushrraf. When the people of Balochistan felt neglected they started a freedom
movement. These examples and facts show that why democracy is better and dictatorship is no
suitable for Pakistan, below discussed are the some benefits of democratic system:

1. It protects the interest of citizens.

2. It prevents monopoly of authority.
3. It promotes equality.
4. It makes for a responsible and stable administration.
5. It brings a feeling of obligation towards the citizens.
 6. It imparts political education to the people.
7. It helps make good citizens.
8. It allows a little chance of revolution.
9. It promotes change.

Conclusion:

Analyzing from different angles democracy in any way is the best option for Pakistan as in a
democratic system everyone has a freedom of speech, the government is accountable to the
citizens as well as the opposition. All the provinces have the autonomist power. Basic human
rights are given priority, there is a low chance of the rebel citizens, there is a transparency in
decision making, there is equality among the citizens, democratic system is open for change,
there is peace and harmony and last but not the least it promotes debate culture i.e; the
government is accountable to all the citizens.