The political history of Pakistan bears ample testimony to the fact that Islam has always been the dominant theme that was exploited by various elements for fulfilment of their vested interests. The role of Islam as an ideology has its roots in the Pakistan movement during which Muslim leaders disregarded the geographical and socio-cultural differences and resorted to Islam as a unifying force to gain the support of traditional leaders and Muslim masses as well as to forge a new nation. Interestingly, in the post independence history also Islam found a considerable place in the country’s constitutional debates, political disputes and conflicts in the spheres of society and economy. Further, Islam has always been exploited by the successive dictatorial regimes to legitimize their rule and to command the confidence of the majority.
Islamization was, in fact, the manifestation of Zia’s inspiration from the PNA (Pakistan National alliance) movement. The PNA owing to its orientation towards religion and its support for the introduction of Islamic system based on Sharia through its famous slogan of Nizam-i-Mustafa was able to muster widespread public support. Therefore, Zia who came through a military coup and was confronted with the problem of the legitimacy of his rule resorted to ‘Islamization’ and portrayed it as unifying force that will submerge all the differences of society and would enable him to win the support of the masses. His move towards Islamization was facilitated to a greater extent by the international circumstances, importantly, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the revolution of Khomini in Iran. However, Incorporating Islamic laws and guidelines into a legal and political system proved very difficult and led to severe stresses on the fabric of state and society.
Islamization, from a broader viewpoint, had three important aspects. Firstly, all possible efforts were made to establish cooperative and stable relationship with those forces of society that shared the regime’s perspective on Islamization. Secondly, the upholders of Islamization had reliance on conservative elements to bring about a change in social, political, legal and economic spheres. Thirdly, new laws, administrative actions and rulings were made to spread Islamic spirit in society and forcing the people to confirm to it.
While pursuing the process of Islamization, the major problem confronting Zia was that he was going to unite a society which comprised the followers of different schools of thought. The major question that came to the forefront was ‘which Islam and Whose Islam’ Zia intends to implement. Though, Zia tried to avoid this question yet his propensity towards the implementation of Hanafi law as well as his alliance with major Sunni political parties like Jamaat-I-Islami served as a driving force to embroil Zia in that debate and finally his policies became a subject of criticism and attack from different sections of society.
However, the Islamization process was commenced with the introduction of major amendments in the sphere of law, economy and education. In the sphere of economy, Zia introduced Islamization through the implementation of Zakat and usher ordinance, abolished interest (Riba) and replaced it with PLS (profit and loss sharing) system. In legal sphere, Hudood Ordinances comprising Islamic punishments was enforced as law for specific crimes complemented by the introduction of Shariat and Qazi courts. While in the sphere of education, the educational curriculum was revised to inculcate Islamic ideology as well as the regime’s perspective and many educational institutions for imparting education of Islamic law and Shariah were established under state patronage. Additionally, the introduction of Majlis-i-Shura, banning political parties, council of Islamic ideology and the nexus of military and religious class for the attainment of common goals characterized the Islamization of politics and institutions.
Moreover, the event which was all pervasive during the Zia regime was Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It played an important role in providing justification to Zia’s Islamization and international support to his cause of Islam. Pakistan rendered unconditional support to the Jihadis in Afghanistan and openly sought International support in this regard. While making major contribution to the war against Soviets in Afghanistan, the Zia regime brought severe ethnic, sectarian and regional differences in Pakistan. Additionally, the ubiquitous role of Ulema and traditionalist classes had disastrous repercussions for the minorities, more importantly, Ahmadis, who were deprived from various privileges as citizens of Pakistan.
The Economic impact of Zia’s Regime
Zakat is one of the underlying principal of Islam which has been given considerable importance in the Quran and Sunnah. The Islamization of economy was undertaken to ensure the equitable and fair distribution of wealth, thereby, establishing the foundations of the society on firm and equal footings. However, Zia and his religious as well as traditionalist compatriots sought to take measures to Islamize the economic and banking system in Pakistan through the institutionalization of Zakat( Alms giving), Ushr and through the abolition of Riba (interest). On 20th of June, 1980, President Zia at the Friday prayer in Islamabad promulgated the ‘Zakat and Ushar Ordinance’. He explained his views regarding the payment of Zakat in these words:
“Zakat is an important Pillar of Islam’s welfare system. The God fearing in the society keep on meeting the requirements of the needy through gifts, Alms and charity. But the difference between Zakat and Alms is that Zakat is obligatory while alms giving is Voluntary. Under the law which is enforced today, part of this obligatory Zakat under the Shariah will be collected compulsorily; – The basic philosophy of Zakat is that it prevents wealth from accumulation in few hands, for wealth accumulated stagnantly in few hands is injurious to the health of the society. It is for this reason that whereas Islam, on the one hand, gives freedom to its followers to earn as much as they can legitimately do and places no limit on property and bank balance, it on the other hand, enjoins upon the muslims to set apart a portion of their earnings for the kindered and the orphans the destitute and the needy and the widows so that money continues to circulate”.
Under this system, financial assistance was provided for subsistence, rehabilitation, health, Education, Deeni Madaris (Religious schools) and social welfare. However, by now the payment of Zakat as religious obligation was a matter that was performed privately by individuals. But with this law or ordinance, the duty for the imposition and collection of Zakat was assumed by the government. Resultantly, the declaration invited criticisms and controversies from different sections of the society which manifested the loopholes in the process. The first reaction to the ordinance came from the Shia community who dealt the issues related to Zakat, marriages and divorce (especially temporary marriage), inheritance and wills and the imposition of Hadd punishments differently according to the principles and requirements of their own sect and they vehemently rejected the state’s role in the collection of Zakat. The Shias already suspicious of the state patronization and enforcement of particular version of Islam came forward to protect their principles, status and position in society. They construed such measures on the part of government as to establish the domination of Sunnis over them, thereby, to expose them to their manipulative capabilities.
In response to Zia’s Zakat ordinances, the Shias made different organizations for the safety and projection of their cause and most important among them was the formation of the militant organization with the name of Tehrik-I-Nifaz-I-Fiqh-I-Jafriya (TNFJ) in 1979. The Shias started protests and demonstrations against the government demanding exemption from the payment of Zakat which culminated in bloodshed and violence. As a result, the government succumbed to their demands and Shias were, resultantly, exempted from the payment of Zakat through amendments in the Ordinance of 1980. Interestingly, the Sunnis could not tolerate such an hospitable treatment of Shias by Zia and, therefore, as a reaction to this move, the Sunnis started anti-Shia and anti-government demonstrations demanding complete implementation of Hanafi law in Pakistan as according to their understanding the majority of the people in Pakistan were the followers of this peculiar school of thought. Resultantly, such moves on the part of the government laid the groundwork or foundations for sectarian divide and violence in Pakistan.
Moreover, the wealthy entrepreneurs and business class found their position and wealth in jeopardy and, thus, started settling and moving their assets outside the country. However, all this circumstances made clear that developing consensus over single interpretation of Sharia as well as Quran and Sunnah was impossible in Pakistani society.
Furthermore, as part of the Islamization of economy, the banking sector was Islamized through the country-wide abolition of interest system and its replacement by Profit and Loss Sharing (PLS) system.
Impacts on Law and Judicial Establishments
The Islamization of Law was one of the principal points comprising President Zia’s Islamization process. With the assumption of power, Zia took resolute steps to bring about reforms in legal spheres which would expedite the Islamization of Punishments for several crimes. On 10 February 1979, President Zia announced ‘Hudood Ordinances’ which encompassed ‘Zina Ordinance’ for sex-related crimes, ‘Qazf Ordinance’ for wrongful imputation of Zina, ‘Prohibition Ordinance’ dealing with issues of drugs or intoxicants and ‘Property Ordinance’. The ‘Hudood Ordinances’ introduced strict Islamic Punishments for certain crimes such as murder, alcohol, theft and Adultery. Amputation of hands for theft, Stoning for adultery and flogging for fornication became the law of the land. The strict Islamic punishments for such crimes caused concern and confusion in different sections of society and it bore negative repercussions.
The Hudood laws with its strict evidentiary requirements proved, especially in Zina cases, victims as guilty while the real culprits could not be punished owing to the lack of evidences. In case of Zina, the law of evidence required either self confession or the testimony of four upright Muslims males and thereby the inability of the women victims of Rape to provide such evidences as well as her pregnancy in the wake were sufficient to prove her guilty and, thereby, were subjected to punishments of Lashes. In this regard, the cases of Lal Mai and Safia Bibi are glaring Examples. More importantly, the promulgation of Qanun-I- Shahadat or Law of evidence made the evidence or testimony of women in many legal cases tantamount to half that of women. Though the law was influenced by or based on Quranic sources and traditions yet Zia’s Islamization was construed as discriminatory towards women.
Moreover, the Federal Shariat Court which was instituted to hear cases for crimes related to ‘Hadd’ made ruling in one of the cases that (Rajam) or Stoning was repugnant to Islam. The decision was based on the fact that such punishments cannot be found in Quran and were rooted in Prophetic traditions. However, the government took actions in reciprocity and the validity of such punishments was maintained, though, with the re-organization in the overall structure of judicial establishment in this sphere.
The reorganization of courts and judicial structure was a significant step in the ‘Islamization process’. To expedite the Islamization of law and judicial system, the military government sought to introduce ‘Sharia courts’ that would hear petitions challenging any law as Un-Islamic or repugnant to Islam. To this end, the ordinance authorized the creation in each High Court a bench consisting of three Muslim Judges to constitute a Shariat Bench and an appellate Shariat bench in Supreme Court to hear cases filed against the decision of Shariat Benches in the High Courts. A major change in this regard came on May 26, 1980, when the Government of Zia, Created the ‘Federal Shariat Court’ that replaced the Shariat Banches of the four High Courts in the country. The ‘Federal Shariat Court’ enjoyed the same powers and jurisdiction as was exercised by the Shariat Courts.
One of the noteworthy outcomes for such a change in the structure of judicial system was that it caused concerns among the western educated Judges who were not well-versed in law of Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence. Their position was jeopardized by the introduction and perceived domination of Qazis and Ulemas in judicial spheres as they were educated in Islamic law. However, to educate the judges and the students in Islamic Law, reforms were introduced in law schools and universities. The beginning of separate faculty for Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence in Quaid-I-Azam University in 1979 and the establishment of International Islamic University in 1980 were the hall marks of Islamization process. Finally, the major impact of Islamization of this sphere was that Zia established the supremacy of the military courts over Shariat courts. Therefore, the Martial law regulations could not be challenged in any court of law.
Islamization and the Afghan war: Zia’s prolonged military rule as well as the recognition of his Islamization process on the part of citizens owes a lot to the Khomeini’s Islamic revolution in Iran as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Through the developments in Iran, the precedent was set for the establishment of Islamic government on the hand while the presence of foreign threat in Afghanistan was exploited to provoke Islamic unity. In other words Islam was portrayed as a unifying force and necessity of circumstance to muster the support of the people in order to counter the soviet threat in Afghanistan. Zia fitted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan into his framework of Islamization and had no hesitation to declare that the Mujahideen were fighting for the cause of Islam and thereby they deserve unconditional moral, diplomatic and financial support. Zia also welcomed support from the Muslim countries and the world powers especially United States of America (USA). The U.S rendered unconditional support as it wanted to turn Afghanistan into a Vietnam for Soviet Union as a part of its Cold war against Communism.
Additionally, the revolution in Iran was compounded by the commencement of its resolve to spread their peculiar ideology worldwide. In Pakistan, this move on the part of Shias was countered by Saudi-Arabia as both the parties wanted influence, domination and supremacy of their version of Islam. They started funding their peculiar organizations in Pakistan and thereby under the auspices of Zia’s government, Pakistan became the battleground for their ideological rivalry. The Mujahideen that were trained in Pakistan under the patronage of Army establishments became severe threat to the security of the state in the post Zia era. All this culminated in the rise of extremist thought as well as militant organizations and institutions in Pakistan and most significant among them were Tehrik-I-Nifaz-I-Fiqh-I-Jafriya (TNFJ), Jamiat-I-Uleme-I-Ahl-I-Hadith (JUAH) and Sipah-I-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP).
The rise of Sectarianism: One of the most significant outcomes of Zia’s Islamization was the rise of sectarianism in Pakistan. With a view to gain the support of religious groups for political legitimacy as well as for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Zia consciously allowed the creation of sectarian and other ethnic organizations in Pakistan. This is, however, construed as a dexterous attempt on the part of Zia as through this way he tried to divide his political opposition as well as divert their attention from the issue of the legitimacy of his rule. Another reason which can be attributed to the rise of such Organizations was that the prolonged absence of channels for political participation during the eight years of Martial law rule seems to have created a situation in which the political discontent was expressed in ethnic and sectarian protests and demands. More importantly, the government was behind fomenting Shia-Sunni violence in major cities through the patronization of different religious organizations and thereby they were refrained from making a united front against the dictatorial regime. Resultantly, all this made Pakistan a composition of sectarian, ethnic and regional divide.
As a negative repercussion of this tactic on the part of Zia government, these organizations became militant owing to the state patronage as well as the unchecked aid and sponsorship of foreign countries. Therefore, differences between Sunnis and Shias over minor issues such as Zakat reached horrendous proportions and culminated in sectarian violence and killings across the country. Importantly, the state sponsored Jamaat-I-Islami (JI) as well as the Jamiat-I-Ulema-I-Islam (JUI) were involved in fomenting sectarian strife and differences as they wanted the complete implementation of Sunni Islam or Hanafi law in Pakistan. Resultantly, all this contributed to the disintegration of Pakistani society in one form or another.
Pakistan’s involvement in Afghan war also culminated in the infiltration of large number of refugees and proliferation of large number of unchecked arms and ammunitions in the Pakistanis society which were actually brought for the cause of Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The repressive rule of Zia opened the floodgates to drug trafficking and widespread ethnic and sectarian violence which are the hallmarks of the so-called “Kalashnikov culture”. The arms were used not only against the Soviets in Afghanistan but also for sectarian and ethnic purposes within the country. Additionally, the proliferation of intoxicants negatively affected the youth and the overall social sphere.
The status of women: Zia’s Islamization is often portarayed as anti-women owing to its biased and discriminatory approach towards them. The ‘Hudood Ordinances’, ‘the law of Qisas and Diyat’ as well as the ‘Law of Evidences (Qanun-I-Shahadat)’ were sufficient to force the women to stand up for the protection of their rights and status in Pakistani society. They felt that the Islamization of each and every sphere meant an all pervasive role of the conservative and Orthodox ‘Mullahs’ and Ulemas, thereby, creating an atmosphere of acute restrictions for them.
In 1982, the Ansari commission made several recommendations pertaining to the position and status of women in society. These included recommendations for disqualifying women from ever becoming the head of the state, prohibiting women from leaving the country without a male escort, not allowing unmarried or unaccompanied women to serve in overseas diplomatic corps and Islamic dress code for women. Resultantly, the women groups resisted the discriminatory moves on the part of government through demonstrations and agitations from the platform of different NGO’s (Non- Governmental Organizations) and other social organizations like Women Actions Forum (WAP) and All Pakistan Women’s Association (APWA). They opposed the Commission’s recommendations and the prospective promulgation of Ordinances in this regard. Interestingly, they were able to attract the attention of international human rights organization towards such a violation of women rights in Pakistan. However, in their protests the women were subjected to tear gassing and were Lathi charged while the Ulema portrayed such protests as an act which challenged Quranic injunctions. The Zia government under the pressure of Islamist groups was not ready to give consent to their demands as he wanted the establishment of Pakistani society on Islamic basis. All this created an environment of uncertainty and chaos in Pakistan.
Intrusion in the personal life of Individuals: The Zia regime is characterized by the unprecedented intrusion of government in the personal lives of the people under the pretext of Islamization. The great manifestation in this regard was the appointment of ‘Nazimeen-i-Salaat’ who were relegated the authority to observe and monitor the religious obligations of individuals in society as well as to submit report to the government on the religious conduct of the people. Furthermore, under the ‘Ramazan Ordinance’, the people were not allowed to openly eat edibles in public places during “Fasting” times. Additionally, the hotels were not allowed to open for the provision of food during specific hours. However, in essence such moves were not able to bring about a positive change in society rather it was an additional tool that was exploited by the law enforcement authorities to tease and harass the people.
General Zia Ul Haq was a military dictator who came through a military coup and lacked any political constituency. This was the reason which forced him to deny the credibility and acceptability of any democratic and political entity. Zia felt no hesitation in declaring the political parties as well as the Parliamentary form of government as Un-Islamic. The council of Islamic Ideology (CII) was instituted to bring all the laws according to Islamic injunctions and to facilitate the process of Islamization.
Moreover, Zia curbed the democratic process and many tactics were employed in this regard to press the democratic ideals, forces as well as to prove the inefficacy of democratic institutions with a view to ensure the long term existence of his rule. Zia was of the understanding that the current disintegrated and disunited plight of Pakistani society was because of the government system based on western ideals. Zia upheld that the political parties were based on alien traditions or Un-Islamic and were responsible for the civil war and loss of East Pakistan. Therefore, the political parties and their activities were banned in Pakistan. As a negative repercussion of the ban on the politicians and political parties, the discontent was shown through the formation of different ethnic and sectarian organizations and also through their demonstrations and agitations in this regard. Even though, he agreed to hold elections in the later part of his era but he put forward a condition that the elections would be on non-party basis. Furthermore, Zia who was determined to use Islam as a unifying force was unable or unwilling to recognize the ethnic demands and differences in Pakistan. Resultantly, such policies were enough to give rise to ethnic violence and movements against the government.
Moreover, with a view to placate the political forces and fulfill their demand for the formation of consultative or representative body, Zia announced the formation of Majlis-I-Shura in 1982. The Shura was supposed to help the government in the establishment of Islamic democracy and in a creation of society based on Islamic principles and values The Majlis-I-Shura was an appointed not an elected body and it had just advisory powers such as to amend laws and suggest amendments in the existing laws but it did not enjoy powers of a genuine legislature. However, such a move on the part of the government was welcomed by the fundamentalist Sunni Islamist political parties such as Jamaat-I-Islami (JI) and Jamiat-Ulema-I-Pakistan (JUI) who were of the understanding that through this way the ideal of credible Islamic state could be achieved. Interestingly, these groups started criticizing the government towards the ending years of Zia’s regime as it was then manifest that Islamization was only a tactic on his part to legitimize and enlarge his rule.
To further weaken the democratic processes and to cut short the powers of legislature, Zia was able to pass the 8th constitutional amendment act through the assembly. The amendment provided absolute powers to Zia enabling him to dissolve the parliament at his own will. It was through this tool that Zia was able to topple the government of Junejo and in the post Zia eras many democratic and popularly elected governments were dissolved through the presidential orders under the powers gained through this amendment.
Additionally, during Zia regime a strong relationship had been built between the military and religious class. It was important for the government as the Islamist political parties were used to give religious cover to the policies introduced or commenced by Zia. The Islamists occupied important governmental positions in different departments. The workers and activists of such parties occupied high ranking positions in judiciary, Civil service and educational institutions. The Zia regime is also alleged for the persecution of political opposition where the political activists were subjected to lashes and jail custody in order to compel them to withdraw from their demands and anti-government activities.
The army under Zia skillfully used the intelligence agencies to manipulate the political parties. The Inter-Services Intelligence was involved in the formation of the alliances of opposition parties, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) and the Muhajir Qoumi Movement (MQM) to counter Bhutto’s PPP. The Zia regime encouraged and facilitated too much involvement and influence of army in Politics. Furthermore, the well-entrenched nexus of military and religious groups also helped Zia in the smooth and successful pursuance of his Afghan policy and to establish the domination of Military in all the spheres.
The Islamization of Education was also an important aspect of Zia regime. The regime undertook the task of propagating the notion that the country was created to be established on the principles of Islam. Zia attempted this by asserting at every opportunity that the Ideology of Pakistan was Islam as well as that its mission was to be an Islamic state and the government was destined to inculcate this thought in the minds of students. However, the major aim of the Islamization of educational sphere was to train the students in such a way that they would be made conscious of the Islamic Ideals and principles and they would be enabled to make contribution to the formation of an Islamic society based on the principles of justice and equality. Moreover, such an education system would be instrumental in producing people that would help to construct the thoughts of the future generation on the basis of Islam.
Furthermore, as part of the new educational policy the curriculum and textbooks were revised so as to conform to Islamic values. The teaching of Islamic studies was made compulsory at university as well as school and college levels. All the possible efforts were made to purge the curricula of Un-Islamic material and content. With a view to facilitate Zia’s Islamization process, the curriculum was designed so as to attest and endorse the religious and ideological concerns of Zia regime and thereby to justify its validity.
Additionally, with the Islamization of Judicial, economic and legal spheres, there arose a need to have specialists who were experts in Islamic law, jurisprudence and economy. So, in order to remove this obstacle the government started introducing departments and faculties in educational institutions to provide the knowledge of Islamic Law and Sharia. A glaring example in this regard was the opening of Sharia Faculty at Quaid-I-Azam University Islamabad for imparting education in Sharia and modern law at post-graduate level in 1979. More importantly, the establishment of Islamic University in Islamabad glaringly symbolized Zia’s Islamization of educational system. The institution became an International forum for students all around the world to get the knowledge of Islamic law, Sharia and Arabic as well as modern scientific education.
Interestingly, the major Islamist political parties that were considered the allies of Zia in his pursuit of Islamization demanded a separate university for women, thereby, a complete segregation of educational institutions. The women groups, therefore, rejected such proposals as it would lead to further discriminations against them in social spheres. However, Zia had a different understanding as he wanted elimination of differences between the schools and religious seminaries. Resultantly, in this connection Zia did not gave consent to demands of Islamists who sought an absolute religious and Islamic society.
Impacts on Minorities
During the rule of Bhutto, the Ahmadis were declared outside the pale of Islam. However, in his speech on 12 August 1983 President Zia made argument that, “In Islam minorities are not regarded as suppressed class rather they are the privileged ones. In fact in a Muslim society their rights are more than Muslims populations. In Islamic system of government their rights will be fully protected”. The religious parties adopted a strict stance and tried to pressurize the government to declare the Ahmadis as ‘Non Muslims’ as well as make decisions to deprive them of the rights enjoyed by the Muslim citizens of the country. However, to placate the religious parties Zia issued an ordinance which inserted Article 298-B and 298-C in the Pakistan Penal Code which made it a criminal offence for Ahmadis to pose as Muslims, to preach or propagate by words either spoken or written and to use Islamic terminology or Muslim practices of worship. Such amendments and ordinances meant suffering for and discrimination against the minorities in Pakistan. Their vulnerable position was exploited by the radical religious groups for the attainment of their vested interests and these were sufficient to attract the attention of international human rights organizations and present Pakistan’s negative picture in the outside world.
The Zia regime was of the significant importance in the history of Pakistan. Islam was considered as a unifying force, thereby, instrumental for national unity and integration. The Islamization process is also construed by many as Zia’s attempt to legitimize his dictatorial rule. However, one thing which became evident was that owing to the existence of various schools of thought in Islamic society, the consensus on the single interpretation of Quran and Shariah was impossible to be achieved. As its negative consequence, the Ulemas failed to develop a common framework for the introduction and implementation of an Islamic system in a society. Interestingly, in the absence of a viable intellectual framework, ideologies were twisted, political systems were replaced and legitimization of power was sought in whatever slogan was available for sale. Zia’s Islamization, indeed, resulted in polarization and division of society on ethnic, sectarian and regional basis.
In addition, Zia’s Islamization is criticized because it was based more on suppression, restrictions, punishments, and illegitimate political control. The regime lacked any serious resolve towards the introduction of creative reforms based on the consensus and consent of different sections comprising Pakistan’s society. The development of such trends gave rise to the politics of agitations and rebellions in the country as well as it made Pakistan a subject of criticism from different quarters in national and international spheres.
Zia’s Islamization is also considered to be merely symbolic and Islam was exploited solely for political purposes. The introduction of Shariah courts was portrayed as a sincere effort on the part of government towards the introduction of System based in Islam. However, finding his position in jeopardy through such reforms Zia established the domination of Martial law regulations or orders over the Islamic law. Therefore, such regulation could not be challenged by any law existing in the country. Furthermore, the changes in Penal code were confined just to certain civil and criminal laws specific spheres while the other domains were free from its sphere of jurisdiction. Such measures were sufficient to manifest the futility of the Islamizaton process and because of this reason Islamization could not gain roots in society.
To cut the story short, Islamization left in its legacy a disunited, disintegrated, extremist and a militant society. It did considerable harm to the institutions of the country and its negative implications showed its glaring presence in the later history of the country. The Pakistani nation showed their disinterest in the Islamization of the overall institutions of society, though, at personal level they had a cordial respect for it. Additionally, Zia’s military rule expanded the power and influence of the military in the social, political and economic spheres, thereby, establishing well-entrenched precedents for the illegal assumption of power in the country.