Pakistan was created on the basis of the bogus two nation theory of evil men like Jinnah. This subcontinent has so much diversity that a theocratic state is simply not viable, and only secularism can work here.
Many Muslims (not all) in India before 1947 wanted a separate Islamic state. They got it, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Pakistan has become a madhouse, a Jurassic Park. Shias, Ahmedis, etc are being slaughtered regularly, and many have fled the country. About 1000 women are stoned to death every year,the latest case being of Farzana who was recently stoned to death near the Lahore High Court by her father, brothers, etc because she married a man whom her father disapproved of. Human rights activists, journalists, etc are being killed regularly. Children are not being permitted to be vaccinated against polio, etc.
When a country is declared an Islamic state, many problems immediately arise. Firstly, non-Muslims immediately become second rate or third rate citizens, and so the country becomes a house divided within itself, which,as Abraham Lincoln said, cannot stand. In Pakistan, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, etc are persecuted and live in fear from fanatic elements, of which there are many in Pakistan.
Secondly, the problem arises, which Islam is the correct Islam, Sunni or Shia, Deobandi or Barelvi ? Are Ahmadis Muslims ?
The orthodox Muslims believe that Muhammed was the last Prophet, while the Ahmadis believe in a nabi called Ghulam Ahmad who lived the 19th Century. It is, of course, open to the orthodox Muslims to say that Ahmadis are not Muslims, but did they have the right to kill Ahmadis, burn their homes and mosques, and beat up their children.
If Ahmadis say that there was a prophet after Muhammed, are they breaking anyone's head or chopping of anyone's limbs? They are not doing any harm to anyone. So why should they not be allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe ?
Muslims believe that there is only one god called Allah, and they are against idol worship. Hindus believe in several gods, and do idol worship. So should the two communities fight with each other for this reason ? This would be stupid.
The reasonable approach is that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe in. Otherwise in a subcontinent of such diversity there will be fights all the time.
Sunnis believe in four khalifas after Prophet Muhammed's death---Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, and Ali (the Prophet's son-in-law). Shias believe that the first three were usurpers. Shias also believe in 12 Imams, which the Sunnis do not believe in. Now should Sunnis and Shias fight for this reason ? It is stupid to do so. Let everyone believe whatever he/she want to believe in. That is the only sensible way, particularly in a country of such diversity as ours. But in Pakistan Shias are regularly being killed just because they are Shias.
Sunnis are broadly divided between Barelvis and Deobandis.
Barelvis (who comprise of the majority of Sunnis) go to dargahs which have graves of Sufi saints, while Deobandis regard this as idol worship.
The basic difference between Deobandis and Barelvis is this : Deobandis believe that if one has to make a request ( minnat) to Allah he should make it directly to Allah, and not through some human agency, whereas Barelvis believe that the request can also be made through a human agency, e.g. a sufi saint whose grave is in a dargah, e.g. the Ajmer dargah (which Emperor Akbar used to regularly visit), the Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia dargah in Delhi, etc Deobandis usually do not go to dargahs, regarding them to be places of idol worship. They are like the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, who regard dargahs as places of idol worship (Saudis destroy dargahs if built by anyone).
The interesting thing is that the vast majority of Muslims not only in India but also in Pakistan and Bangladesh go to dargahs. Even Hindus go to dargahs, and in many dargahs there are more Hindu devotes than Muslims (though the management is always of some Muslims, e.g. the Chishti family in Ajmer).
I myself like dargahs, and regularly visit them. This is because Hindus do not go to mosques, and Muslims do not go to temples, but both go to dargahs. So dargahs unite all communities, and I love whatever unites all communities.
Now if a deobandi does not wish to go to dargahs he need not go there. But the matter does not end there. In Pakistan, dargahs are being bombed by fanatic elements. Should such bigotry be tolerated?
All this is the inevitable consequence of declaring an Islamic state. In a subcontinent of such diversity. Only a secular state is viable here.
Secularism does not mean that one cannot practice one's religion. Secularism means that religion is a private affair unconnected with the state, which will have no religion