National anthem controversy

Afghan diplomats sparked a controversy inside Pakistan by not standing up during Pakistan's national anthem. The Government in Pakistan, which owes its existence to everything that is on the opposite side of legitimacy and respect, has somehow started making noise about those very two words regarding this matter. The Afghans are saying that they didn't stand up because there was music being played; and had little kids been singing the anthem, they sure would have stood up and that they had no intention of disrespecting Pakistan.

I just want to give a little perspective here. The United States waged two major wars under Bush, which continued under Obama. During those two wars, America came to hurt its own democracy by spying on its own citizens, thereby violating civil liberties enshrined in the US constitution and a strong part of the western society's culture as well. The rationale given by the US government every time was that the American national security was at stake and if there was a choice between securing people's lives and their civil liberties, then it was quite obvious that civil liberties were enjoyed by living people not dead.

Pakistan here might be doing the opposite of that but not as you'd think. Not that Pakistan was valuing its values and dignity over defence. Today's newspapers have a small news item, which doesn't seem significant and even by how the papers have placed it also makes it look like it is just a thing that had to be reported because it happened. But I find it to be the most important news item especially when viewed with the background of the anthem sitting controversy.

US Acting Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs John Bass visited Pakistan about which a statement was issued by the US embassy in Islamabad. He met Ishaq Dar and General Asim Munir. A diplomatically worded statement was issued about how the meeting discussed regional stability and countering terrorism and extremism. But one thing caught my eye: Washington is not satisfied with Pakistan's cooperation on the issue of Afghan refugees transiting through Pakistan and reaching the US. I was personally inside the US embassy right about the time after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. There were far more Afghans inside that building than any Pakistanis.

I just want to make sure we understand what this is actually all about. The Afghans that assisted the US during the American occupation of Afghanistan were awarded with a US visa and a path to citizenship or green card. These are the Afghans that worked against their own soil. In other words, these are textbook traitors. The US proudly calls itself the home of the brave. I wonder what kind of home of the brave would the US become when such textbook cowards become citizens there.

More importantly, it has never been any secret that the Taliban have been Pakistan's allies. The US war ended through talks with the Taliban primarily due to the role played by Pakistan. It wouldn't be extreme to say that the US and Pakistan were on the opposite sides when it came to the issue of Taliban in Afghanistan. These Afghans that the US wants Pakistan to help transit through Pakistan are the ones that worked against Pakistan. And Pakistan has been gladly facilitating these very Afghans, who really are Pakistan's enemies, to use Pakistani soil to reach the US embassy and then on to the United States.

Somehow that was never seen as a disrespect to the nation's dignity and national security but sitting through the national anthem is. A national anthem is not equivalent to civil liberties of citizens of a nation. It is about dignity and respect. But so is welcoming active enemies on its soil to be used as transit. If a nation cherry-picks the issues that it finds offensive then it means it really isn't about respect but rather about something else.