Should Some Nations Generate Outrage?
Diplomacy, cultural exchange, and cooperation on shared challenges are more likely to lead to a world where diverse societies coexist and thrive.
Recently, I have found myself reflecting on a Middle Eastern country created as a safe haven for a persecuted religious group. This country was founded in response to a strong nationalist movement when the British withdrew after World War II. It was established by idealistic secular liberals who opposed the idea of a theocratic religious state.
This country now controls religious sites that are of great importance to other religions. Today, it is ranked as a top 20 military power, and its arsenal includes nuclear weapons. This significant military strength was developed as a perceived matter of survival, as the country is bordered by hostile nations of different religions, with hotly contested land disputes. Recent conflicts over these disputed lands have tragically resulted in thousands of civilian casualties.
Of course, I am sure it has already occurred to you that the country I have been thinking about is Pakistan.
In 1947, Pakistan gained independence as a result of the partition of British India, which was primarily advocated by the All-India Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The League's Lahore Resolution of 1940 called for the creation of independent states for Muslims in the subcontinent. The partition was based on the two-nation theory, which held that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations that could not coexist in a single state. The process of partition led to mass migration, with millions of Muslims moving to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs to India. This migration resulted in widespread violence and loss of life, with estimates ranging from 200,000 to 2 million deaths. On August 14, 1947, Pakistan officially came into existence, with Jinnah serving as its first Governor-General.
Pakistan controls religious sites important to faiths other than Islam including: the Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur, the final resting place of Sikhism's founder; the ancient Hindu Katas Raj Temples dedicated to Lord Shiva; and Takht-i-Bahi, a 1st-century CE Buddhist monastery complex and UNESCO World Heritage site.
Pakistan has an ongoing territorial dispute with India, particularly over the region of Kashmir, which has led to several wars and conflicts between the two nations. As a result, Pakistan has developed a strong military. The country conducted its first nuclear weapons tests in 1998, becoming the first Muslim-majority nation to possess such weapons. Tensions with India remain high, with sporadic cross-border skirmishes and attacks. The Kashmir dispute continues to be a flashpoint, with both countries claiming the region in its entirety. The conflict has resulted in numerous civilian casualties and displacement on both sides.
Unfortunately, despite its idealistic secular founding, the outcomes for the country have not been good. Pakistan today is ranked 118th on the Economist Democracy Index which labels the country as having an “authoritarian” government. The nation is poor, 136th in terms of GDP per capita globally. When it comes to the rule of law, a critical foundation for a just country, the World Justice Project ranks Pakistan 130th. Women's rights are not respected in Pakistan, with the country ranked 142nd in the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report 2023. Same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Pakistan, where Sharia law "carries heavy penalties for homosexuality – of imprisonment for 2-10 years or for life, or of 100 lashes or stoning to death.”
As an American, I find myself wondering why we see extreme outrage directed at certain other countries while the civil rights abuses and civilian casualties in Pakistan go unremarked. In our casual conversations, blogs, and campus protests, there is a notable absence of activism:
No one is urging boycotts of Pakistani products, companies, or tourism.
There is no advocating for an end to student and faculty university exchange programs between the US and Pakistan.
Pakistani speakers are not being blockaded from speaking at American universities.
Musicians who choose to perform in Pakistan are not being shamed.
Pakistan's right to exist as a nation is unquestioned.
Why do we treat Pakistan so civilly compared to other countries that have similar origins but far better outcomes socially, economically and in terms of human rights? It seems that our outrage and activism are inconsistently applied, and it's worth examining the reasons behind this discrepancy.
As a nation, we must strive for a consistent application of our principles and values. If we are to stand up for human rights, democracy, and equality, we must do so universally, without picking and choosing which countries to target based on factors unrelated to these core issues. Otherwise, we are simply using our values as a cover for underlying animosities.
Rather than fueling outrage and hostility towards other nations, we should focus on promoting our values and being strong advocates for peace while recognizing that other countries have the right to exist and pursue self-determination. By finding common ground, we can work towards building a more peaceful world. This does not mean compromising our principles, but rather advocating for them in a way that respects the sovereignty and dignity of other nations. Diplomacy, cultural exchange, and cooperation on shared challenges are more likely to lead to a world where diverse societies coexist and thrive, and where conflicts are resolved through peaceful means. Ultimately, by being voices for peace and understanding, we can contribute to progress for all.
Peace through understanding.