In the aftermath of Pakistan's creation, the very foundation of its ideological identity became a subject of contention, leading to decades of political discord, administrative confusion, and a lack of cohesive national direction. The nation was born in the name of Islam, yet it inherited a Western-style state structure with leadership that leaned towards secular, democratic ideals. The vision of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, while deeply rooted in Muslim identity, did not clearly advocate a theocratic state. Instead, he envisioned a country where Muslims could live freely, guided by Islamic principles but governed through democratic norms. This juxtaposition between religious aspiration and secular administration laid the groundwork for an enduring identity crisis.
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
Initially, there existed two competing visions for Pakistan's governance. One side championed ethical democracy based on Islamic principles while the other promoted a Western parliamentary system. With no consensus and little clarity, the state apparatus found itself pulled between these ideological poles. Jinnah’s early death in 1948 deprived Pakistan of a unifying figure whose clarity and authority might have steered the country through its formative years. Consequently, disagreements flourished among liberal and Islamist factions, leaving Pakistan without a unified direction.
Over time, efforts were made to formally articulate the ideological framework of the state. In 1949, the Objective Resolution was passed, marking a significant step towards defining Pakistan’s Islamic character. This resolution attempted to balance Islamic values with democratic governance, asserting that sovereignty belongs to Allah while allowing elected representatives to govern within those divine boundaries. The Objective Resolution declared that the sovereignty of the entire universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust. However, this blend of spiritual and temporal authority created a duality that bred further confusion. It neither satisfied hardline religious factions demanding an Islamic order nor comforted liberals seeking a modern, secular democracy.
The complexity deepened with successive constitutional developments. While the constitutions of 1956, 1962, and 1973 incorporated the Objective Resolution as their preamble, they each wavered in the degree to which Islamic law influenced legislation. This ambiguity led to legislative inconsistencies, policy reversals, and a general lack of ideological direction. The courts, too, were drawn into interpreting the ideological leanings of the state, often finding themselves caught between legal precedent and religious doctrine.
The leadership vacuum after Jinnah’s demise exacerbated the problem. Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, was assassinated in 1951, leaving the country in deeper political disarray. Successive leaders failed to command national respect or articulate a unified ideological path. The assassination of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951 marked a critical turning point, depriving the state of yet another unifying leader who could have solidified the constitutional direction. Ethnic and sectarian divisions deepened in the absence of authoritative leadership. The 1953 anti-Ahmadiyya riots, for instance, underscored the state’s inability to manage religious diversity within the framework of a coherent Islamic identity.
The ensuing decades witnessed radical swings in ideological orientation, often driven by the personal convictions of rulers rather than national consensus. Ayub Khan, who ruled from 1958 to 1969, promoted modernization and economic liberalism inspired by Western values. Ayub Khan modeled his government’s economic vision on free-market principles, undertaking sweeping industrial reforms and focusing on infrastructure development inspired by Western technocratic models. In stark contrast, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, despite his socialist rhetoric, introduced Islamic elements such as the declaration of Friday as a weekly holiday and banned alcohol consumption. Then came General Zia-ul-Haq, who imposed a more rigid version of Islamization during the 1980s, institutionalizing Shariah courts and introducing Hudood Ordinances.
Each leader, rather than resolving the ideological dilemma, reinforced it by pursuing personal visions that lacked broader societal endorsement. The pendulum of governance swung violently between Islamic and secular extremes, thereby preventing the evolution of a balanced, homegrown political philosophy. General Pervez Musharraf’s tenure from 1999 to 2008 introduced the idea of “enlightened moderation,” once again attempting to rebrand the state along modern lines while keeping Islamic symbolism intact.
This constant ideological oscillation has had serious implications for Pakistan's internal cohesion and external relations. Domestically, it has given rise to militant extremism, sectarian violence, and marginalization of minority groups. Externally, it has projected an image of a nation unsure of its identity, complicating its diplomatic engagements with both Islamic nations and Western powers. The tension between Islamic rhetoric and liberal institutions has eroded public trust, weakened democratic norms, and compromised national unity.
Furthermore, the state’s educational curriculum and media have become battlegrounds for ideological narratives. Textbooks promote a revisionist Islamic nationalism while simultaneously failing to encourage critical thinking or civic responsibility. Similarly, media outlets are polarized between religious conservatism and liberal modernism, offering no consistent national discourse. Civil society, caught in this dichotomy, struggles to assert a unifying voice.
Judicial activism has also been influenced by this ideological flux. At times, courts have taken bold steps to assert constitutional supremacy. At others, they have bowed to religious orthodoxy. For instance, blasphemy laws have been used not just to protect religious sentiment but also to settle personal scores and suppress dissent. This judicial inconsistency further erodes legal clarity and weakens rule of law.
Perhaps most significantly, the unresolved question of identity has hampered the development of a coherent foreign policy. Pakistan’s oscillation between Islamic solidarity and strategic alignment with Western powers has made its international image unpredictable. From championing the cause of Muslim nations to hosting Western military coalitions, the country has sent mixed signals that undermine its credibility.
CSS Solved Past Papers from 2010 to Date by Miss Iqra Ali
Explore CSS solved past papers (2010 to Date) by Miss Iqra Ali, featuring detailed answers, examiner-focused content, and updated solutions. Perfect for aspirants preparing for CSS with accuracy and confidence.
Even today, the ideological rift remains palpable in political discourse. Right-wing parties call for a return to Islamic principles while liberal parties advocate for secular governance rooted in democratic ideals. The state oscillates between appeasement and confrontation, never quite committing to a singular ideological path. Constitutional amendments, legal battles, and public protests continue to reflect the unresolved tension that has plagued Pakistan since its inception.
In conclusion, Pakistan’s identity crisis is not merely a philosophical dilemma, it is a structural issue that affects every facet of national life. The conflict between Islamists and liberals over the governance model has consistently delayed institutional reforms, impeded policy continuity, and fostered national confusion. Resolving this will require more than legal amendments or rhetorical posturing. It demands a sincere, inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders, rooted in historical awareness, legal clarity, and democratic spirit. Only through such a consensus-driven approach can Pakistan hope to reconcile its founding ideals with its contemporary realities, forging an identity that is both authentic and functional.
