Written by: M. Rashid Tabassum

Ideology is a complete set of beliefs and principles that shape the consciousness of individuals, groups, or societies. Pakistan was founded on a unique ideological basis known as the Two-Nation Theory, which asserts that Muslims and Hindus are two distinct nations with different religions, cultures, traditions, and ways of life. Despite coexisting for centuries in the Indian subcontinent, they never assimilated into one society.   

The foundation of the Islamic State in the subcontinent was laid in 1206 by Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, a former slave of Shahab-ud-Din Ghori. Muslims ruled the region until 1857 and maintained a just and inclusive governance system. However, Hindus never fully accepted Muslims and their rule. When the British took control of India, Hindus aligned with them, conspiring against Muslims. 

During Muslims’ rule, Urdu was the dominant language, but in 1867, Hindus launched a linguistic movement demanding the replacement of Urdu with Hindi and its Persian script with Devanagari. This move was motivated purely by hostility towards Muslims, as Urdu’s script closely resembled that of Arabic, the language of the Quran. 

The British also devised strategies to weaken Muslims politically, religiously, socially, and economically. One such measure was the formation of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885 by a retired British officer, Allan Octavian Hume. The Congress primarily worked in favor of Hindus while sidelining Muslims. It promoted the idea of nationalism to blur religious differences and advocated the concept of one nation, one country. 

The Partition of Bengal in 1905 by Lord Curzon was a significant event. It was welcomed by Muslims but strongly opposed by Hindus. This opposition further disheartened Muslims, prompting them to organize as a separate community. Consequently, the All India Muslim League (AIML) was founded on December 30, 1906, in Dhaka during the Muhammadan Educational Conference. Its primary objective was to safeguard Muslim rights. Recognizing the growing hostility from both the British and Hindus, Allama Iqbal envisioned an independent Muslim state. On December 29, 1930, during the 25th annual session of AIML in Allahabad, he proposed: “I am not despaired of Islam as a living force. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State.”

The first provincial elections of 1937, held under the Government of India Act 1935, further exposed the Congress’ anti-Muslim stance. Congress secured power in seven out of eleven provinces and took systematic measures to suppress Muslims. Hindi was declared the national language, Vande Mataram was adopted as the national anthem, and Muslims were deprived of government jobs. In response, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah urged Muslims to unite and resist Congress’ dominance. Upon the resignation of Congress ministries in 1939, Muslims observed December 22, 1939, as the Day of Deliverance, to celebrate their freedom from oppressive rule. 

The 27th annual session of AIML, held in Lahore from March 22–24, 1940, was a turning point in the struggle for Pakistan. In his speech, Quaid-e-Azam declared:“The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither inter-marry, nor inter-dine together. Their aspects of life are different.”

On March 24, 1940, the Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) was passed. It demanded that Muslim-majority areas in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped into independent states. Hindus and Congress strongly opposed this resolution, unaware that within seven years, it would become a reality. 

Despite immense opposition and conspiracies, Pakistan was created on August 14, 1947, by the grace of Allah. 

Pakistan was created in the name of Allah, and its enemies continue to conspire against its stability. Today, it is crucial to revive the spirit of Pakistan’s independence movement and work towards peace, security, and national unity. Political and religious organizations, along with the entire nation, must come together to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty from external threats and conspiracies. 

Pakistan Zindabad!

Note: The writer is a freelance journalist based in Lahore, can be reached at [email protected]

Byl Qamar Bashir

In a stunning policy shift that has sent shockwaves through the education sector, President Donald J. Trump has dismantled the U.S. Department of Education. Framing the move as an overdue return of control to the states, Trump described it as a step toward “freedom of choice,” empowering families and communities to decide what’s best for their children’s education without interference from Washington.

The now-defunct Department, which oversaw national education standards, civil rights protections, and billions in federal funding, has been stripped of its authority. In its place, states are being asked to take full ownership of their education systems—designing their own curricula, setting standards, managing teacher certification, and overseeing accountability.

While advocates of decentralization celebrate this as a chance to innovate, critics warn that it is a recipe for chaos. Wealthier states with robust education infrastructure may thrive under local control, continuing to produce competitive students. But under-resourced states—especially in the South and rural Midwest—may struggle to sustain even basic levels of quality without federal funding or guidance. The result could be an educational patchwork where opportunity and excellence depend not on merit, but on geography.

The immediate fallout includes the layoff of over 4,400 federal employees and the withdrawal of more than $82 billion in federal funding that supported everything from early education to college access. Among the most affected are programs like Title I Grants, which provided over $16 billion annually to schools serving low-income communities, and Pell Grants, which enabled well over 7 million students from working-class families to attend college. Federal assistance for children with disabilities under IDEA, school meal programs, and support for English language learners and STEM education have also been impacted.

These programs once served as lifelines to marginalized and disadvantaged communities. With their funding now uncertain and their management delegated to state governments, the concern is that racial and socioeconomic gaps will widen. Families with means—predominantly white and affluent—can pivot to well-funded private schools and benefit from increased local investment. But millions of low-income students may be left behind, attending increasingly under-resourced public schools with shrinking support systems.

Many experts fear that a two-tier education system is emerging, one that privileges the rich while further marginalizing the poor. In such a system, the quality of a child’s education will depend more than ever on ZIP code, race, and economic status. Over time, this could entrench inequality and fuel societal divisions.

At the same time, Trump’s move raises concerns about the rise of private influence. As state budgets tighten and federal support fades, education may become increasingly dependent on private foundations, corporate partnerships, and philanthropic donors. While this could open doors for innovation, it also risks allowing private interests to shape public education according to market demands rather than democratic values. There is a growing worry that public schools may become politically sidelined and financially starved while elite private institutions thrive.

Trump’s decision is not without precedent or rationale. For years, critics have argued that the Department of Education had grown bloated, inefficient, and overbearing—more focused on compliance and paperwork than actual outcomes. They say returning control to local authorities can foster accountability, responsiveness, and creativity in tackling challenges specific to each region.

But the scale and speed of the change have left little time for adaptation. Education is not a short-term enterprise. It is a long-term investment whose results unfold over generations. A shift this drastic, without a safety net or transition plan, risks undermining the very students it seeks to empower.

To better understand the potential consequences, it’s important to recall how the federal role in education evolved. For much of U.S. history, education was left to states and local school districts. But this decentralized approach produced huge inequalities—between urban and rural districts, between the North and South, and especially between white and Black communities.

The federal government stepped in gradually but decisively. The GI Bill in 1944 opened college doors to returning veterans. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 declared school segregation unconstitutional. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act brought large-scale federal funding to disadvantaged districts as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975 ensured that children with disabilities had equal access to public education. Finally, in 1979, the Department of Education was created under President Jimmy Carter to centralize these efforts and ensure consistent national standards.

Since then, federal oversight has helped enforce civil rights, improve data collection, expand access to higher education, and provide targeted funding to the schools and students who need it most. Dismantling this legacy means reverting to a pre-1960s model—a time when disparities in access and quality went largely unaddressed.

Whether Trump’s bold restructuring will yield success remains to be seen. Supporters believe it will lead to innovation and efficiency, but critics argue it will exacerbate inequality and undercut the nation’s competitiveness. If the next four years do not produce measurable improvements, the political winds could shift. A future Democratic administration, or a new Republican president, could potentially restore the Department and reinstate federal programs. But undoing such a sweeping reform will take time—and by then, state systems may have fully adapted to a decentralized model.

What is certain is that this decision represents a defining moment in American education. It challenges long-held assumptions about the role of government, the purpose of public schools, and the meaning of equal opportunity. It forces the nation to ask: Should education be a shared national priority—or a local experiment shaped by wealth, race, and regional politics?

Trump’s education revolution is underway. Whether it becomes a model for the future or a cautionary tale remains an open question.

Byl Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC

 Macomb, Detroit, Michigan