Pakistan: An Unfinished Business..

Saleem Raza

Bradford: Pakistan is more than a place on the map. It is an ongoing question, one that remains unanswered because the country continues to struggle with its own identity. Calling it simply an “Islamic state” imposes a fixed idea on a far more complex history.

Calling it a “secular state” ignores the deep religious and cultural emotions that shape everyday life. Pakistan exists somewhere in between, caught in a space where the state is unsure of itself and society struggles to see a clear reflection of who it is.

From the moment it came into being, Pakistan stood between two very different traditions. On one side was Islam, not just as a faith, but as a moral and spiritual guide deeply rooted in the lives of its people.

On the other side was the colonial system inherited from British rule, especially the legal and administrative structure shaped by Lord Macaulay. This system was not neutral. It was built to maintain order, enforce discipline, and control society.

Obedience was rewarded, dissent was discouraged, and freedom existed mainly on paper.

Pakistan adopted this inherited system almost entirely. Courts, police, bureaucracy, and administration all followed this model. As a result, the state learned to govern through rules and procedures rather than trust, participation, or justice.

Islam, meanwhile, did not develop into a clear framework for governance. Instead, it remained largely a social and emotional force, expressed in mosques, sermons, and political slogans. Its rich ethical and intellectual traditions rarely shaped laws, economic systems, or public institutions.

Religion spoke to individual conscience, but not to the structure of the state. This created a divided experience: people lived under colonial-era laws during the day and turned to faith for meaning and comfort in their private lives. Law and religion existed side by side, but they never truly came together.

Over time, religious authority became concentrated in clerical institutions. Mosques, madrasas, and pulpits shaped social values and moral boundaries.

Yet an important question remained unanswered: if religion guided morality, why did it have so little influence over how the country was governed? Religious leaders shaped beliefs, but not policy. Islam became a moral voice, not a governing system.

Political power moved in a different direction. A small, self-described modern and enlightened elite took control of state institutions and decision-making. Fluent in the language of development and progress, this group viewed religion as a cultural identity rather than a practical guide for governance.

Faith was acceptable in private life, but the state, in their view, had to remain a neutral machine. This elite continued to shape policies, governments, and national priorities.

Above all these forces stood the military. Over time, it became more than a defence institution, it became a central authority in defining the state itself. Its worldview, also inherited from colonial traditions, emphasised command, discipline, and hierarchy.

Citizens were often seen as units to be managed rather than active participants in national life. Political debate was treated as instability, and criticism as disloyalty. While the military provided security, it could not offer a shared civic purpose.

In this environment, religion was sometimes used to reinforce discipline, while law was used to justify authority.

These challenges were made worse by the concentration of power among elites. Political families, economic interests, and influential networks increasingly treated the state as their personal domain.

Privilege, protocol, and protection from accountability became normal. Corruption was no longer just about money, it became part of how power was exercised. Control appeared in many forms: force, legislation, and sometimes silence.

As elite circles prospered, millions of ordinary citizens struggled. Life for many became an endless wait, for jobs, for justice, for basic services, for promises to be kept. Their voices were often reduced to slogans or silenced by fear and uncertainty.

In practice, Pakistan came to be shaped by three forces at the same time: religious authority influencing society, secular elites controlling political power, and the military defining the state’s direction.

Meaningful dialogue between these forces remained rare. Religion did not become governance, the state did not become fully democratic, and the nation never developed a shared understanding of itself.

This is why Pakistan still feels unfinished. Its meaning is searched for in mosques, in military institutions, and in government offices, but nowhere completely. What is missing is a common vision, a shared philosophy, and an agreed path forward.

Until the state decides whether it will continue to rely on inherited colonial systems or develop its own intellectual foundations; until military discipline is balanced with active citizenship; until religion moves beyond slogans and contributes to ethical governance, this uncertainty will remain.

And so Pakistan continues its journey through history not as a settled idea, but as an open question: searching, divided, and still trying to reconnect with the purpose on which it was founded.

The author, a Pakistan-born creative based in Bradford, UK, is a versatile talent celebrated as a designer, artist, and poet. They hold a postgraduate degree in fashion design from London, showcasing their expertise in both artistic and academic pursuits.

The article is the writer’s opinion, it may or may not adhere to the organization’s editorial policy.

Post Views: 538

#British rule #clerical institutions #governing system #Pakistanin2026 #sermons governance mosques Pakistan