In the guise of championing democracy and human rights, certain elements within the Pakistani-American diaspora have, in recent years, assumed a more controversial role-one that increasingly positions them not as advocates for progress, but as unwitting instruments of discord. Far from being a strategic asset for Pakistan, these diaspora-led movements, driven by political allegiances and selective activism, are inadvertently contributing to a narrative that weakens national cohesion, erodes Pakistan’s sovereignty, and invites foreign interference in domestic affairs.
The recent wave of diaspora activism, ostensibly aimed at promoting democracy in Pakistan, is less a neutral human rights campaign and more an organized political movement with strong affiliations to a single political party and its leader. Cloaked in democratic rhetoric, it largely mirrors the language and positions of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and its supporters, particularly in their defense of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. While the diaspora rightly has the freedom to express its views, what is concerning is the extent to which these views are being weaponized in foreign policy arenas-particularly the U.S. Congress-in ways that openly undermine Pakistan’s institutions, especially its military.
This is not democratic advocacy. This is political partisanship exported abroad, amplified through congressional lobbying, social media campaigns, and aggressive efforts to portray Pakistan’s military-a cornerstone of national security-as a rogue actor. When American lawmakers are lobbied to sanction Pakistani officials, to condition military cooperation, and to tie foreign aid to internal political outcomes, one must ask: whose interests are being served?
While the diaspora rightly has the freedom to express its views, what is concerning is the extent to which these views are being weaponized in foreign policy arenas.
It is a dangerous misconception to equate pressure from a vocal diaspora segment with the collective will of Pakistanis. Many within the country see such activism as deeply polarizing and even counterproductive. At a time when Pakistan faces complex internal and regional security challenges, including threats from militant groups like ISIS-K, attempts to publicly erode trust in the armed forces serve only to weaken the country’s internal resolve and deterrence capacity. The diaspora’s criticism rarely acknowledges these threats or the delicate balancing act Pakistan must perform in a volatile region.
Moreover, the movement’s call for U.S. sanctions or legislative acts targeting Pakistan’s military leadership is not just unrealistic-it is reckless. These are not symbolic gestures. They have far-reaching implications on defense cooperation, regional stability, and even economic partnerships. When diaspora voices demand visa bans and asset freezes against Pakistani officials, they cross a dangerous line-actively lobbying a foreign power to penalize the very state they claim to represent. This is not service to the homeland; it is a form of political sabotage.
The irony, of course, is that these activists champion rights and freedoms abroad while ignoring the complexity of Pakistan’s democratic evolution. Democracies are not built by undermining institutions, vilifying entire arms of the state, or simplifying multifaceted issues into binary good-versus-evil narratives. Pakistan’s journey toward stronger civilian governance is ongoing, and criticism-where warranted-should come from a place of reform, not retribution.
Additionally, the diaspora movement’s selective outrage reveals its true political coloring. Abuses that occurred under the very leaders they support are conveniently ignored. The suppression of dissent, media manipulation, and pressure on the judiciary are not exclusive to any one regime in Pakistan’s history. Yet the diaspora’s moral clarity seems to switch off when it comes to their preferred political icons. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of their so-called pro-democracy stance.
It is also important to challenge the framing that diaspora activism is filling a vacuum left by a suppressed civil society at home. Despite restrictions, Pakistan continues to have vibrant media platforms, human rights defenders, and political activists working on the ground. These individuals engage in constructive, informed discourse-often without the polarizing tone and foreign backing that characterize diaspora-led efforts. True reform must be indigenous, rooted in local contexts, not outsourced to foreign capitals.
Finally, there is a growing realization within Pakistan that the diaspora’s current trajectory is not helping-it is hurting. By inviting U.S. intervention, aligning with partisan agendas, and portraying Pakistan in a relentlessly negative light, the diaspora risks further alienating itself from the very society it claims to represent. A strategic asset is being squandered-turned from a bridge between cultures and governments into a wedge that deepens divides.
Patriotism requires more than vocal dissent-it demands responsibility. The diaspora must reconsider whether its approach fosters progress or simply perpetuates polarization. If they truly wish to serve Pakistan, they must move beyond the politics of grievance and embrace the politics of constructive engagement-respecting sovereignty, strengthening institutions, and advocating reforms that come from within. Anything less is not activism. It is a disservice.
The writer is a freelance columnist.