Pakistan has finally reached the stage where it is actually revising and considering the basis of its foundation. The fact that the Objectives Resolution has come under the spotlight and is being considered debatable, is a perfect example to Pakistan’s current state. There seems to be no direction to the unlimited terror incidents taking place in Pakistan. At times it seems as if the minority in danger and other times, the majority. But, why are terrorists targeting people with respect to their religious identity?

Pakistan is a state. A state does not thrust its people into a race based upon the culture they follow and the religion they belong to. It requires prosperity which can be gained through any theory well-suited to that state’s necessities. It can be socialism, capitalism, or any other ideology. Either way, its people are not identified by the sect they belong to. Or which religion they follow. Even if they are in minority, they equal citizens in the state’s eyes and they have their right to freely follow their religion and practices. They have the right to security. There is no need for them to be treated as deprived minorities as they have been Pakistanis since the beginning. It is the discrimination on the basis of religion which interferes with political concerns of the state which causes disunity.

It is no surprise that anyone just following a different norm or practice cannot be targeted. Sabeen for example. But, then, she is one person from recent times who showed tolerance towards different cultures and practices which are not harmful. But there has been a personality in history who was no different from Sabeen, with respect to her tolerance. The Mughal emperor, Akbar.

Jalal-ud-Din Akbar was and still is criticized for introducing Din-i-Illahi – the political policy, misunderstood as a religious policy. The fact that people believed that he converted to Hinduism as he was lenient towards Hindus is wrong. The fact that he is not taken as a good Muslim emperor because he used to put tikka on his forehead when he met Hindus for their festivals, is also wrong. I question: was he only an emperor for the Muslims? Were there only Muslims living in the Mughal Empire? No! He is the perfect example for how people following two different religions can live peacefully, in unity in an empire. He presented a perfect example of how religion should be given importance and it should not be mixed with political affairs as a religion is a matter of belief and may vary from person to person. And involving it in the state's affairs can never result in prosperity and unity.

I believe that sad incidents may not stop occurring in our country as the ideology of Pakistan is also debatable. The fact that we still read ‘The Two Nation Theory’ the way it was presented over a hundred years ago is simply in ignorance of how the two nation theory is proving to be a failure in Pakistan. Hindus and Muslims cannot live together as they belong to different religions. Muslims need a separate land so that they can practice their religion peacefully. I agree that having religious right is essential but then this right belongs to  every religious community, not just Muslims. 

My heart aches to read statements like “are we not Muslims enough or are we not Pakistanis enough?”. The fact that we are human beings holding the right to choose and follow any religion we want and have any nationality is enough. The beauty of it is the happiness and the proud feeling of being one and being respected, having a positive image. Religion is a personal matter and when if it's dealt on the state basis it may not serve well and that is because we people may have same religion but are not tolerant enough to accept different interpretation. Every sect has its own importance and is important for the sake of a state's peace, therefore brutal actions taken against any sect does not justify Pakistan as an Islamic state. As for the people to know, since when did Islam inspire people with such a strict teaching?

A religion may not serve a state's needs. A state needs good economy, employment, security and development. Whereas, a religion leads to improvements on the basis of being a better person. Both are extremely essential. But then their clash, or if they are taken in a wrong way may not prove to be successful or show a state full of harmony. It is because having a state keeping its survival on a manmade theory of having economy can prove to be better as all religions are given equal rights. But if a state is based on the basis of religion then it may give an upper hand to a particular religion which may not be acceptable to all. And the dominating religion may always increase its dominance by suppressing other religions. This may not serve to be a fair game rather than disgusting for humanity keeping example of Pakistan in mind.