Cheering for the Pakistani cricket team in India by some Muslim students raised a serious question about freedom of expression in both countries, India and Pakistan. In India, the Muslim students who chanted in favour of the Pakistani team were initially charged with sedition, which was later dropped on the intervention of the chief minister of Indian-held Kashmir. While the subject was still hot and being debated in the Indian and Pakistani press, another university in India expelled six Muslim students on similar charges. A situation was created where a grouping of students emerged opposing and favouring the incident; to avert a law and order situation, the administration of the university had to call in the police. For the majority of Hindus in India, the gesture was an open act of disloyalty to the country where these Muslim students were born, raised and educated. For them, it was difficult to understand that minorities always carry a tendency to look for opportunities where they can make the majority realise their importance even at the risk that may put them in danger. Luckily, no untoward incident happened and no harm was caused to these Muslim students except their expulsion from the university. In Pakistan, the reaction was totally opposite to what was observed in India. Here, the news brought a feeling of joy for many people as it reflected a common religious bond that still keeps them together despite living apart from each for over 66 years. Everybody and his brother jumped into the ongoing debate to show their solidarity with their Muslim brethren in India and voiced their concerns on the expulsion of the students from the university for an act that was so trivial in its nature and in no way against democratic norms. The foreign office spokesperson, Tasneem Aslam, also found it an opportune time to make it known to the Kashmiri students that our doors are open for them if they elect to pursue their education in Pakistan. Amid the show of these feelings of fraternity with Indian Muslims, some enthusiasts went ahead of others and took extremist actions against Indian outfits. An internet hacker from Pakistan defaced the official website of Swami Vivekanand Subharti University as revenge against its decision of expelling the Muslim students from the university. Two days later, eight to nine persons armed with guns and pistols ransacked a yoga centre in the capital city of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan because it had an association with a world famous Indian guru. Soon after, another incident took place that was also against the Hindu community living in the country. A furious mob attacked a Hindu temple in Larkana and set it on fire because of an alleged desecration of the Holy Quran by a person belonging to the Hindu community. Social media also became active and views carrying different perspectives on freedom of expression started appearing on the internet. To a senior journalist and a former diplomat who happened to be in support of the Kashmiri students, I asked two simple questions: what would be our reaction if a Pakistani citizen ever raised a slogan in favour of India? What does he think of the sedition case against Shaikh Mujibur Rehman, knowing that he had never chanted any slogan in favour of India? The answer I received from the former diplomat was, “Mujib and others might not have raised slogans in favour of India but for all intents and purposes they were cohorts of India and vice versa.” Before I could raise another question, two remarkable statements from Mr Imran Khan and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan appeared in the press, declaring opponents of the peace talks as enemies of Pakistan and liable to be included in the hit list of the government. Apparently, the ongoing debate on freedom of expression made no impact on these two prominent democrats of the country when they issued these warnings to their political opponents. The beneficiaries of these statements were none other than Indian and Pakistani extremists who could have found nothing more convincing than these statements to justify the acts of extremism and lawlessness they often commit against those whom they dislike. What this whole debate on freedom of expression shows is that it is quite easy for men in power to declare anybody an enemy of the country. Even if one does not raise a slogan in favour of any foreign country, the authorities can sense the real intent and purpose of a person anytime they want. Taking a critical view of a government policy that deals with outlawed militant organisations may lead an analyst to a dangerous spot while the militants and insurgents can go out and kill thousands of people without losing their credentials of being loyalists of the country. Like militant organisations we now have the elected government keeping a hit list that it can use against all those who dare to differ with them, except the militants. Journalists, opinion makers and social activists need to know the double-edged sword they face now. If militants miss them, the interior minister will be there with his hit list to get hold of them. Keep your ideal of freedom of expression in your pocket; it is nothing but merely a piece of paper if you do not have the power to implement it. The writer is a freelance columnist