The Struggle for Identity: Unity, Division, and Competing Visions of Pakistan Ideology.

The collection of concepts, views, traditions, and values that serve as the basis of the Muslims fight for their own independent nation. The Two-Nation Theory, which highlights the uniqueness of Muslim identity in the Indian subcontinent, is the foundation of Pakistani ideology. Pakistan was founded on this philosophy, which brought Muslims together behind a common set of principles, values, and objectives. Pakistan’s identity, foreign policy, government, and social conventions are all still influenced by its philosophy. Islam, Separate Nationhood, Protection of Minorities, Social Justice, Economic Equality, Democracy, Constitutional Governance, and Allah’s Sovereignty are the main tenets of Pakistani ideology.

According to Cohen, the Two-Nation Theory—which defended partition by defining Muslims as a separate political community—was the original inspiration for Pakistan’s philosophy. However, after independence, this ideological foundation became contested and redefined, often shifting between Islamic identity, democratic aspirations, and military-led nationalism. He underlines that the establishment of Pakistan, especially the military and bureaucracy, changed the ideology to put security and external threats—particularly with regard to India—above the progress of democracy within the country. Cohen argues that Pakistan’s political culture is still shaped by this uncertainty and prevents a unified vision of whether the country should primarily be an Islamic state, a democracy, or a security-driven nation.

Ideology is a double-edged force. Ideology has the power to cement. It brings individuals together around common values, beliefs, and objectives. For instance, national ideology frequently provides citizens with a feeling of identification and belonging. However, ideology may also cause division: when it becomes inflexible, exclusive, or intolerable, it can dehumanize minorities, divide communities into “us vs. them,” and even spark conflict. Therefore, how inclusively ideology is understood and used determines whether it unites or divides. The author demonstrates how Pakistan’s fundamental beliefs—the “two-nation theory” and the notion of a Muslim homeland—first served as a glue. It provided Indian Muslims with a feeling of solidarity and shared purpose. The author also highlights how Pakistan later experienced separation because of this similar philosophy.

Tension between religion and politics, the center and the provinces, and majority vs minority populations resulted from the differing understandings of the ideology by various groups, including the army, political elites, and Islamists. Ideology frequently turned into a weapon of power, employed by rulers to defend military supremacy or Islamization, rather than to direct the state. Depending on how inclusive it is, ideology can either lead to unity or division. Ideology started off as a tool to bring Muslims together for independence, but it soon became a source of separation due to divergent political and social viewpoints.

Researchers and philosophers have interpreted Pakistani ideology in a variety of ways, each reflecting unique philosophical, political, and historical perspectives. Two opposing but equally important viewpoints are provided by Stephen P. Cohen in “The Idea of Pakistan and Justice” and Javed Iqbal in “The Ideology of Pakistan”. Javed Iqbal considers the ideology as a religious-philosophical basis for the state’s existence and survival, whereas Cohen looks at it through a political and institutional lens. When taken as a whole, their opinions show how difficult it is to determine what Pakistani ideology is.

Javed Iqbal, on the other hand, describes Pakistani ideology as distinct, coherent, and deeply rooted in Islam. He claimed that rather than because of differences in geography, language, or ethnicity, Muslims across the subcontinent desired a unique homeland because religion defined their common identity. According to him, Islam serves as the basis of Pakistan’s moral and cultural principles as well as the framework for government. He also stresses that since the state promotes equality, justice, and the application of Islamic principles in all spheres of life, adhering to these philosophical principles is crucial to Pakistan’s survival and stability.

There are notable distinctions between the two when compared. According to Cohen, the ideology is disputed, changing, and molded by political elites to suit their strategic objectives. whereas Javed Iqbal, who has a strong foundation in Islamic philosophy, maintains that it is permanent and essential. Cohen emphasizes continuity and clarity while Iqbal emphasizes ideological complexity and manipulation, presenting Pakistan’s identity as closely linked to Islam. These opposing viewpoints highlight the larger conflict between a pragmatic, state-centric interpretation of ideology and the moral, religious vision that supports Pakistan’s fundamental existence. Cohen and Javed Iqbal’s opposing views demonstrate the various ways in which Pakistani ideology is still interpreted. Iqbal argues that it is a permanent religious basis that is vital to Pakistan’s identity and survival, while Cohen emphasizes that it is contested and dynamic, influenced by state interests and power dynamics. Collectively, these viewpoints underscore the continuous discussion regarding whether Pakistan’s future is best served by pragmatic adaptation or by steadfastly adhering to its initial Islamic vision.

Ideology can be both cement and division: When interpreted inclusively, it brings people together; when applied politically or rigorously, however, it causes division. The two-nation idea brought India’s multiple Muslims together for independence, which served as the foundation for Pakistani ideology. However, it turned into division following independence. It was employed variously by the army, politicians, and Islamists. It led to conflicts about whether Pakistan should be ruled by the military, be secular, be Islamic, or be democratic. According to the author, Pakistan’s philosophy was intended to be cement. Ideology ought to be a unifying factor (revival of the Muslim community), but if leaders abuse it, it could cause division. Pakistan’s ideology essentially aimed to unite Muslims across the subcontinent under the banner of Islam and the Two-Nation Theory, acting as a unifying factor. It gave them a common identity that set them apart from the Hindu majority and supported the call for their own country. After independence, though, this unifying ideology occasionally became a source of division due to variations in interpretation and regional priorities. Its original intent was unity and solidarity, but depending on how it was interpreted and used, its effects have changed over time, serving as both a unifying force and a source of division.