Politics, in every age and in every land, has moved like the tide-advancing with promise and receding with disappointment-yet the enduring strength of a state has always depended upon a single, unshaken principle; that no contest for power, no grievance of party or personality, must be allowed to imperil the security and dignity of the nation itself. This is the essence of patriotism, not in the narrow sense of slogans or sentiments, but in the higher obligation to preserve the collective existence above all transient disputes. When this principle is weakened, the consequences are seldom confined to the realm of politics; they extend into the very fabric of national identity.
It is therefore a matter of grave concern when certain elements, driven by discontent or ambition, begin to cultivate the notion that their absence from power signifies the collapse of the state itself. Such thinking is neither new nor confined to any one country, but wherever it has appeared, it has carried within it the seeds of discord. The state is greater than any individual, and its continuity does not depend upon the fortunes of a single leader or group. Those who propagate the contrary, whether knowingly or otherwise, place themselves at odds with the very idea of national cohesion.
The world offers established traditions of dissent and protest, refined over generations to balance the right to expression with the duty of responsibility. Civilized societies recognise that criticism is not treachery, nor is opposition disloyalty; yet they also understand that there exists a line beyond which criticism becomes a tool in the hands of those who harbour ill will towards the state. To cross that line deliberately, and to exploit every opportunity to cast the nation in a negative light before external audiences, is to abandon the discipline that distinguishes constructive dissent from destructive agitation.
History offers ample testimony that nations are not undone solely by external adversaries; they are often weakened from within when discord is allowed to overshadow duty.
In recent times, the conduct of certain groups operating from abroad has drawn particular attention in this regard. The Baloch National Movement, among others, has been cited repeatedly for engaging in narratives that, instead of seeking reconciliation or reform within constitutional frameworks, appear designed to amplify grievances on international platforms. Such actions, whatever their stated intentions, risk aligning with forces that have never reconciled themselves to Pakistan’s existence. It is no secret that regional rivalries continue to shape perceptions and policies, and that India, in particular, has often been identified as a principal actor in this contest of narratives. When domestic voices, willingly or otherwise, echo positions that coincide with such external agendas, the distinction between internal dissent and external pressure begins to blur.
The recent episode in Geneva has added a new dimension to this debate. Qasim Khan, the son of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, was seen participating in a side event of the United Nations Human Rights Council, where he appeared alongside Dr. Naseem Baloch, a leading figure of the Baloch National Movement. In his remarks, he drew attention to the human rights situation in Pakistan and highlighted his father’s imprisonment as a central issue. While the right to speak and to advocate is undeniable, the context and company in which such advocacy occurs inevitably shape its interpretation.
This was not an isolated occurrence. Observers have pointed to earlier meetings, including one with Arif Ajakia, which had already attracted criticism. To many analysts, these engagements suggest a pattern that raises questions not merely of political alignment, but of judgment. For the son of a former prime minister to be seen in association with figures widely regarded as controversial, particularly on international forums, introduces sensitivities that extend beyond personal or familial considerations. It touches upon the image of the state itself, especially at a time when Pakistan faces economic challenges and seeks to maintain a delicate diplomatic balance.
The reaction within political and public circles has been swift and varied. Some have defended the right of individuals to present their perspective on global platforms, arguing that engagement with international institutions is a legitimate means of highlighting concerns. Others, however, have expressed apprehension that such appearances may inadvertently lend credence to narratives that are detrimental to Pakistan’s interests. In an era where perception often shapes reality, the manner in which a country is represented abroad can have tangible consequences for its diplomatic standing and economic prospects.
It is here that the old wisdom regarding the influence of association acquires renewed relevance. The English proverb that “a man is known by the company he keeps” finds its echo in the Eastern saying that a melon takes on the colour of the melon beside it. These expressions, though simple, convey a truth that transcends cultures: proximity shapes perception, and repeated association, whether intended or not, carries implications that cannot be easily dismissed. To ignore this is to overlook the subtle yet powerful ways in which reputations are formed and judgments are made.
Pakistan today stands at a juncture where unity of purpose is not a luxury but a necessity. The challenges it faces-economic strain, regional tensions, and internal divisions-require a measured and responsible approach from all segments of society, particularly those who occupy positions of visibility. To inflame existing problems, or to project them in a manner that undermines confidence in the state, is to weaken the very foundations upon which solutions must be built.
History offers ample testimony that nations are not undone solely by external adversaries; they are often weakened from within when discord is allowed to overshadow duty. Patriotism, in its truest sense, demands not the absence of criticism, but its exercise within the bounds of responsibility and loyalty. It requires that even in moments of profound disagreement, the larger interest of the state remains paramount.
At a time when Pakistan can ill afford further strain upon its cohesion and image, it becomes imperative for all concerned to reflect upon the consequences of their actions. The path of agitation may offer immediate visibility, but it seldom yields lasting benefit. The path of restraint, though less dramatic, is the one that ultimately safeguards the nation’s dignity and stability. Those who choose the former may claim to speak in the name of justice, but if their actions serve to deepen the country’s difficulties, they cannot be counted among its well-wishers.
The writer is a freelance columnist.