Political Islam, once employed as an identity marker, now divides more than it unites.

In recent remarks, Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir articulated his ideological vision for the country with a clarity that many leaders deliberately avoid. He unapologetically reaffirmed the Two-Nation Theory and emphasized the enduring divide between Hindus and Muslims—a worldview deeply rooted in religious exclusivism.

For me, this honesty is refreshing. At least he is not hiding behind the concept of “Taqiya” (dissimulation) or the carefully crafted ambiguity that many political actors use. He owns his hardline position openly.

But we must ask—what does this ideological commitment to Islamic identity actually mean in practice? If Islam is the unifying principle behind Pakistan’s statehood, as claimed by its top military leadership, then why have fellow Muslims suffered under its policies—both at home and across borders?

In 2023, the Pakistani state forcibly expelled nearly 1.7 million Afghan refugees, many of whom had been living in the country for decades. Men, women, and children—many of whom were born in Pakistan—were sent back to a nation plagued by instability and repression. These individuals were not ideological enemies or agents of discord; they were fellow Muslims seeking safety and sustenance. The logic behind their expulsion wasn’t religious. It was ethnic, political, and economic.

This contradiction isn’t new. In 1971, during the Bangladesh Liberation War, West Pakistan (now Pakistan) unleashed brutal violence against East Pakistanis (now Bangladeshis). According to historians, up to three million people were killed, and countless women were subjected to sexual violence. And who were the victims? They were not religious “others.” They were Muslims—sharing not just faith, but language, history, and family ties.

These historical and recent episodes raise a troubling question: Is Pakistan’s national identity truly anchored in Islam, or has religion been used selectively—as a political and strategic tool to justify repression, exclusion, and control?

The Two-Nation Theory, which underpinned the partition of British India in 1947, proposed that Muslims and Hindus were distinct nations who could not coexist peacefully in a single state. But this idea, though foundational to Pakistan’s creation, has since mutated. Rather than fostering a pluralistic Muslim society, the theory has been wielded to divide people further—between Punjabis and Pashtuns, Baloch and Mohajirs, Shias and Sunnis, Deobandis and Barelvis. The outcome is not national unity, but chronic fragmentation.

Instead of serving as a source of cohesion, Islam has become a battlefield of sectarian and ethnic contestation. Political Islam, once employed as an identity marker, now divides more than it unites. The lived reality of the Pakistani state contradicts its ideological claims. Whether it’s the suppression of Baloch voices, the marginalization of Sindhi culture, or the persecution of Shias, the nation has drifted far from its idealized Islamic unity.

This is not to say that Islam, as a faith or moral system, is to blame. The issue is how Islam has been instrumentalized by the state and military elites. When any religion becomes a political instrument, it loses its spiritual purpose and becomes a tool of coercion.

The youth of Pakistan—and indeed South Asia as a whole—deserve better than this endless recycling of exclusionary doctrines. They do not need more sermons on “us vs. them.” They need education systems that teach empathy, critical thinking, and historical introspection. They need media that values truth over propaganda. And most of all, they need leadership that champions collaboration over conflict.

True unity is not built by suppressing diversity. It is achieved by embracing it. Religion can inspire compassion and solidarity, but only when it is divorced from the machinery of state control and identity politics. A nation cannot find peace if its founding principle is fear of the other.

Pakistan’s future lies not in reinforcing ideological walls but in tearing them down—brick by brick. It lies in building bridges with its neighbors, reconciling with its own people, and redefining what it means to be Pakistani—not as a monolithic Islamic identity, but as a plural, inclusive, and humane society.

History has shown us where hate leads. It’s time to try something different.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

History is often told in a way that glorifies certain figures while ignoring their flaws. One such figure is Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who is sometimes passionately defended by sections of the Muslim community.

However, even Muslim scholars and historians have criticized him for his harsh policies, which played a significant role in the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Aurangzeb’s Path to Power: A Brutal Struggle

Aurangzeb’s rise to the throne was marked by bloodshed. He killed his own brother, Dara Shikoh, and imprisoned his father, Shah Jahan, to take power.

This kind of ruthless behavior wasn’t unique to Aurangzeb—many Mughal and Ottoman rulers followed the “Takht Ya Taboot” (Throne or Coffin) philosophy, where they eliminated even their own family members to secure their rule.

However, from an Islamic perspective, this raises serious ethical concerns, as justice and righteousness are central to Islamic teachings.

The Sharifs of Mecca Rejected Aurangzeb’s Rule

After overthrowing Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb sought religious legitimacy from the Sharifs of Mecca, who were descendants of the Prophet Muhammad and custodians of Islam’s holiest sites.

However, they refused to endorse him, citing Islamic principles that prohibit unjustly overthrowing a rightful ruler. This rejection suggests that even in his time, Aurangzeb’s rule was seen as problematic by respected Islamic authorities.

Muslim Scholars Criticized Aurangzeb’s Policies

Many well-known Muslim scholars and historians have pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid and intolerant approach weakened the Mughal Empire rather than strengthening Islam.

Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762), a prominent Islamic scholar admired Aurangzeb for his piety and commitment to Islamic governance but criticized his excessive military campaigns, neglect of administration, and failure to train his successors. He also pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid policies, including alienation of Hindus and Rajputs, weakened the empire. Shah Waliullah believed that while Aurangzeb upheld religious values, his lack of political flexibility and strategic governance contributed to the Mughal Empire’s decline after his death.

Syed Murtaza Husain (Student of Shibli Nomani) In Tarikh-e-Aurangzeb, he argued that Aurangzeb’s oppressive policies did more harm than good. His intolerance created divisions, leading to unrest and weakening the empire.

Ghulam Husain Khan (1727–1792) In Siyar-ul-Mutakhkhirin, Ghulam Husain Khan noted that Aurangzeb’s extreme religious policies alienated both Hindus and many Muslims. He linked this intolerance to instability and rebellion.

Maulana Shibli Nomani (1857–1914) A scholar who generally supported Islamic governance, Shibli Nomani still criticized Aurangzeb’s excessive conservatism. He argued that the emperor’s strict policies backfired, speeding up the empire’s decline.

Sufi Scholars Opposed Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies

Aurangzeb considered himself a devout follower of Sufism, but many respected Sufi scholars opposed his harsh and rigid rule.

Shaykh Muhammad Masum Sirhindi (d. 1668, Naqshbandi Sufi) Initially, he supported Aurangzeb but later criticized his authoritarian approach. He advised Aurangzeb to rule with justice instead of religious extremism, but his warnings were ignored.

Hazrat Shah Kalimullah Jahanabadi (1650–1729, Chishti Sufi) A key figure in the Chishti Sufi tradition, he emphasized love and tolerance over rigid religious laws. He openly disagreed with Aurangzeb’s extreme policies and promoted coexistence instead.

Lessons for Today’s Muslims and Hindus

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

Aurangzeb’s legacy is not a model of Islamic strength but a reminder of how intolerance and authoritarianism can lead to the downfall of even the most powerful empires.

For Muslims, true strength lies in justice, wisdom, and coexistence—not in defending rulers whose legacy is marked by division and controversy. It is more important to uphold Islamic values of patience, knowledge, and tolerance.

For Hindus, the rich history of Indian civilization should be a source of pride. India has endured and thrived for thousands of years because of its resilience, inclusivity, and wisdom. However, it is crucial not to let history be used to divide society further.

By taking a balanced view of the past, both Muslims and Hindus can work toward unity and mutual respect. Instead of clinging to divisive narratives, we should focus on building a future of understanding and harmony.

The cycle of intolerance, hate, and bigotry needs a full-stop, and the responsibility lies on each one of us.

Intolerance has been one of the widely discussed topics around the world. It’s a phenomenon of parochialism that leads to a weird human trait to reject any belief, view or behavior that isn’t in one’s dictionary. It’s a rampant problem that has fallen like a curse upon the progressive societies, while leaving the citizens of the global village into despair.

Intolerance usually arises from the supremacist understanding of one’s own existence or belief system: When a person feels his religion or view is supreme and has no parallel, and anyone who does otherwise is a low-life and has no value. This has led to the worst massacres in human history.

Holocaust is a popular example where over six million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany during 1941-1945. Similarly, over 15,00,000 Armenian Christians were killed by Ottomans during 1915-1922. Nearly 80 Hindu Pandits were officially killed in Kashmir in the 1990s during their mass exodus from the Valley. At least 8,00,000 Tutsi minorities were eliminated during the Rwanda genocide in 1994. At least 30,00,000 Bangladeshis, both Hindus and Muslims, were killed by pro-Pakistan Islamist militias during the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. More than 30,000 Iranians were massacred and publicly executed by the Khomeini regime in 1988, and were buried in 36 mass graves.

In the recent past, over 10,000 Yazidis were killed by ISIS in Syria and Iraq between 2014 and 2019. Over 43,000 Rohingya Muslims have been killed so far in Burma.

Intolerance has also led to numerous terrorist attacks. Whether it was 9/11 Twin Tower attack against America in 2001, or 25/6 Khobar Tower Bombing against Saudi Arabia in 1996, or 26/11 Mumbai attacks against Indian in 2008, or 7/7 London bombing against United Kingdom in 2005 — the list goes on.

These examples are an ugly side of history that can’t be undone. However, realistic efforts can be made to contain this disease, so that at least this page of the history doesn’t reappear.

Possible Causes

Indonesian researcher Sari Seftiani talked about an analysis method which researchers and civil society groups in Indonesia carried out to understand the growth of intolerance. They came up with a model called ‘Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)’, through which they concluded that strong religious and ethnic identity was a major factor in someone having intolerant attitudes. Usually, this method is used in marketing and health sectors to gauge the satisfaction levels.

After interviewing 1,800 respondents, the researchers identified factors that cause intolerant attitudes. The research suggests that perceived threat, distrust, religious fanaticism and social media can directly and potentially trigger intolerance.

Conspiracy Theories

Apart from the above factors, conspiracy theories, apocalyptic propaganda, and fake news can also trigger a great deal of intolerance.

Texas synagogue attacker Faisal Akram was heavily influenced by the anti-Jewish conspiracy theories taught by late Israr Ahmed of Pakistan — that Jews control the world order; that Jews are moving towards a greater Israel project, after which everyone will be enslaved to serve them. Such systematic lectures generated a perceived threat, which turned a normal person into an intolerant bigot who took up arms.

American science writer Michael Brant Shermer wrote an article, ‘Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories’, wherein he cited the case of New Zealand Christchurch mosque attacker Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who had a 74-page manifesto titled ‘The Great Replacement’ which was basically a far-right conspiracy theory document that claims that white Christian Europeans are being systematically replaced by people especially Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East, through immigration and higher birth rates. This conspiracy theory led to the killing of 51 worshipers.

Apocalyptic Propaganda

Apocalyptic propaganda wired with self-interpretations of the religious preachers have turned out to be lethal to foment intolerance. This cannot be confined to only a particular religion, as this problem has almost existed in all major religions.

Emergence of the ‘dark forces’, arrival of the Redeemer or Messiah, and the dream of a ‘perfect world’ led by only one religion and one world order have turned the followers of these religions into bigots.

Such propaganda leads the religious followers into fanaticism. They live in a rosary world where they see that only they will rule the planet while other communities or religions will either be wiped out or will be demoted to a lower level to serve them.

Unfortunately, when they wake up to a regular day, with the same routine and same work to do, they often get frustrated, and resort to intolerant behaviour in order to expedite the process to achieve the perfect world.

Social Media

Perceived threat with the help of social media has also been a major cause of the growing threat of intolerance.

An imaginary threat or the phobia of the unknown that is often magnified through social media — namely Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, etc — has made millions of people insecure and aggressive.

Most people tend to believe that if they remain inactive in the happening world, either they’ll lose the battle or their opponents will overpower them to wipe them off.

This perceived threat destroys their present, generates distrust, and sparks intolerance and prejudice toward those who they see as ‘potential threats’.

Gaps

Everyone realizes that there’s a gap that needs to be filled in order to confront intolerance. However, most of the efforts made to patch it up have turned out to be futile.

Most political leaders struggle to manage between the devil and the deep blue sea. And the common public whines against the political leaders for not doing enough to fill the gap.

Talking about India, I personally believe there’s indeed a gap between the Right wing majority and the regular people from minority communities. This is often exploited by the anarchist powers, especially from the non-Right wing political sides to keep the ball rolling. They thrive on marketing the perceived threat, and pushing the phobia of extinction in both the groups.

In case a political leader from the Right wing tries to smoothen his terms with the minorities, he will be accused of ‘appeasement’, and if leaders from the minority community try to smoothen their terms with the Right wing, they will be labelled as ‘sell-outs’, or cowards who traded off their conscience. Hence, this gap exacerbates, and leaders from both the camps have to behave aggressively to keep their profiles relevant.

Coming to the Table

I am not an expert to recommend a tactical solution to resolve the differences and to fully defeat the tides of intolerance. However, coming to the table has always been a healing stage.

Coming to the table is often misunderstood as compromising one’s religion, or renouncing one’s belief, and adopting the religion of the counterpart.

It’s not the case — a Hindu who feels proud of his faith can remain who he is, and a Muslim who feels proud of his faith and religious practices can practice his faith and book. While a Jew who doesn’t believe in Jesus can normally practice his faith, and a Christian who believes that only Jesus is the staircase to heaven, can believe what he wants. In short, coming to the table does not in any sense means converting or forcing others to your way.

We have numerous examples in history. The Abraham Accords, for instance, saw Arab Muslim countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco forge ties with Jewish nation Israel, based on mutual terms and agreements.

When people from different faiths and sects come to the table, they get a fair chance to listen to each other to understand their genuine reservations. This process can be shaped or designed in various ways.

I learnt some of the methods from my British friends who tried and tested this method. For instance, a football match with mixed players in different teams, or an exhibition to display the works and arts of followers of different races and religions.

Please note that the dialogue-building process shouldn’t be merely for the sake of politics, or to boost a political party’s image. It should be purely for the sake of a country’s integrity and for the sake of a better future where our progeny won’t have to face intolerance.

Who Will Bell The Cat?

In the end, I would like to add a significant point. I am sure a lot of us would like to be a part of the healing process, but who’ll bell the cat?

Whataboutery often comes up in a discussion as a spoiler. Each group tries to justify its intolerant behaviour by using whataboutery.

I personally believe that recognising the self-problem is part of a bigger solution. It doesn’t mean self-loathing. But to sincerely voice out the problems with proper introspection, without any ifs and buts, can help the counterparts to rethink and collaborate. At least those in the opposition camp pay ears to listen to your concerns or your points of view.

Each one of us is responsible to bell one’s cat without demanding others to do that. ‘Who’ll do first?’ or ‘Why should I do it first?’ will never break the vicious cycle.

The cycle of intolerance, hate, and bigotry needs a full-stop, and the responsibility lies on each one of us.

Article first published as Op-ed piece in CNN News-18.

Zahack Tanvir is a Saudi-based Indian national. He is Director of Milli Chronicle Media London. He holds a PG-Diploma in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI-ML) from IIIT. He did a certificate program in Counterterrorism from the University of Leiden, Netherlands. 

*Featured Image: United Nations.

Guests

1 – Irina Tsukerman. She is a New York-based Human Rights Lawyer and National Security Analyst. She is also a Media and Security consultant. Irina writes and speaks on human rights voilations of the Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen. She extensively speaks on Iranian mullah regime’s catasrophic agenda in the MiddleEast.

2 – Sharon Collins. She is a Florida-based Independent Political Analyst and Researcher, mainly focused on Middle East Affairs. She also visited Saudi Arabia and stayed in the Kingdom.

3 – Rabbi Enchanan Poupko. He is a New York-based Jewish Rabbi or Scholar. He is also a TEDx speaker. He participates in interfaith discussions to bride gap between the Muslims and Jews.

4 – Mohammed Abbasi. He is a London-based coach, speaker and writer. He is director of Association of British Muslims. He works for Football for Peace. He is a great fan of Sun Tzu, and in fact he teaches the art of war.

Moderator

Zahack is a Saudi-based Non Resident Indian (NRI). He founded The Milli Chronicle in September 2018, which mainly focuses on MENA affairs. Zahack has been working on a non-commercial basis to publish the works of notable researchers and Think-Tank groups.

YouTube Link.