Muhammad Amir Rana
Published September 22, 2024
DAWN
ON Sept 26, 1960, Fidel Castro delivered a historic and defiant speech at the UN General Assembly, but it was not his words that caused the stir. Instead, Castro and his Cuban delegation refused to stand up for the US national anthem during the meeting, a clear symbolic rejection of American influence. This provocative gesture deepened the already strained relations between the US and Cuba, further fuelling Cold War tensions.
In addition to the diplomatic stand-off, Castro’s delegation faced blatant discrimination when New York hotels refused to accommodate them, forcing the group to find refuge in Harlem, a neighbourhood at the heart of New York’s Black community.
However, there was no similar backdrop to what the acting Afghan consul general, Muhib Ullah Shakil, did in Peshawar the other day during the National Rehmat-ul-lil-Aalamin (PBUH) Conference, when he did not stand up for the Pakistani national anthem. Afghanistan justified this refusal to stand by arguing that, since the anthem was set to music, it went against their religious beliefs. Just a few days later, a Taliban diplomat repeated the same action at the 38th International Islamic Unity Conference, where Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was also present. Interestingly, Iran is also a state run by the clergy, but its anthem contains music.
Whatever the Taliban’s justification may have been, such junctures are considered an affront to the national dignity of the hosting state. Apart from the Cuban delegation’s protest of America’s undignified ‘hospitality’ and the Cold War background, there are several other examples where actions disrupting or going against flag hoisting or anthems of nations have had wider implications for bilateral ties.
Disputes over national anthems and flags often reflect deeper political tensions.
Diplomatic protocols for national anthems vary by country and occasion, but standard guidelines are generally followed during official ceremonies. These protocols may accommodate religious or cultural sensitivities; for example, diplomats from certain countries might refrain from specific gestures during anthems due to religious customs, and host nations usually respect such practices as long as it is communicated in advance.
It is certain that, at least in Pakistan, the Taliban diplomats had not conveyed their reservations to Pakistani officials. Otherwise, Pakistan’s Foreign Office would not have been provoked into giving a strong response to the undiplomatic gesture.
Afghanistan’s internal crisis is evident in its national symbols, despite the Taliban’s claims of peace in the country. National symbols unite people by creating an emotional bond among citizens. When these symbols fail to serve the purpose, a clear disarray within the citizenry becomes apparent. The ongoing dispute over the flag and anthem highlights the deep divisions between Afghanistan’s political factions and the struggle over the country’s identity, governance, and future direction.
When the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021, they replaced the national flag and anthem. The Taliban anthem, which lacks instrumental accompaniments, challenges singers to create a musical impact solely through their voices. Despite these changes, the Taliban’s flag and anthem are not widely recognised internationally, nor are they accepted by a large segment of the Afghan population, who still favour the pre-Taliban flag and anthem. The old Afghan anthem is still used at international sporting events, particularly in cricket, and Afghan players wholeheartedly respect it.
The Taliban’s anthem, ‘This is the Home of the Brave’, resembles a war song, with a tone often used by jihadist groups in their motivational music. In contrast, the pre-Taliban anthem was created by Article 20 of Afghanistan’s constitution, which mandated that the anthem include the names of the country’s various ethnic groups and the phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’.
This was an achievement for Afghanistan, a multi-ethnic country that created a consensus anthem in 2006. Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in 2008, is facing an anthem crisis because of its ethnic diversity. The country had left its national anthem without lyrics until a national consensus evolved over the words. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also an example in which tensions emanating from the two sides’ anthems are as deeply rooted as the historical, political, ideological, and ethnic differences between them. The Palestinian national anthem, Fida’i, and Israel’s national anthem, Hatikvah, have often caused mutual tensions.
Disputes over national anthems and flags often reflect deeper political tensions, territorial conflicts, or historical grievances between nations. Though symbolic, such incidents can stir nationalist sentiments and lead to diplomatic protests, potentially escalating broader tensions, as seen in the case of Cuba and the US. While international norms and diplomacy typically stress the importance of respecting national symbols, perceived violations can quickly become flashpoints in international relations. These disputes often underscore more profound political or historical divides.
For example, in 2017, China passed a ‘national anthem law’ after pro-democracy protesters began booing during the Chinese national anthem.
Perhaps Pakistan’s response to the ostensible disrespect for its anthem by the Taliban diplomat would have been different had the country had good relations with Kabul. After all, Pakistani society is as religious as the Afghans are, and, until 2022, when the Taliban refused to cut ties with the terrorist group TTP, a major segment of the state and society had fallen in love with the Taliban system.
After the Taliban takeover in 2021, a retired general, during an event, warned Pakistani political parties to be ready to face the music when the Taliban become a model for good governance. Pakistan’s former special envoy to Afghanistan, who recently left his post, was seemingly also influenced by the same perception and believed that the TTP was a Pakistani problem, which could only be addressed through improving the rule of law.
Such simplistic arguments turn more sensitive when compared to the emotionalism attached to national symbols. Indeed, the rule of law is an issue in Pakistan, but it cannot be used to justify the Taliban’s support for the violent TTP.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024
Forever in fervour
ONE of my favourite lessons in the classroom is on the use of descriptors and adjectives, and to demonstrate, I teach how national holidays like Aug 14 are reported. Since I began work as a journalist in 1995, I have read iterations of ‘Pakistanis celebrated such-and-such day with fervour’. The exercise on reporting on national holidays without using patriotism in the copy is a great lesson and also allows reflection on how we’ve been conditioned to think.
If we’re singing the anthem every day at school or the cinema, or waving flags at a ceremony, it does not necessarily mean we are patriotic. Habit does not equate fervour.
The opposite is also not true, ie, a person not waving flags etc is unpatriotic. Over the years, the weaponisation of ghaddar coupled with a highly inflammable society prone to violence has resulted in a deadly combination.
Patriotism has long been used to exclude communities — cementing stereotypes, creating divisions and keeping power in the hands of the elite.
Our guests’ beliefs deserve as much respect as ours.
I did not think a recommendation of Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 Against Our Will, about how men use rape to keep women in a state of fear, and its use in war by soldiers, would earn me a label of ‘anti-state’ by one student. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction when presented with something that goes against everything you’ve been taught. I don’t blame the student as much as I do the system that produced a factory of workers handing out certificates of patriotism.
I’ve been thinking this while watching the discussion around the Afghan diplomats not standing for Pakistan’s national anthem in KP. There is a lot of hysteria on YouTube and mainstream TV across the political divide. The diplomats’ explanation was pretty simple: they did not stand because the anthem contains music which they consider unIslamic; they meant no disrespect.
Because we are so conditioned into equating respect with standing for the national anthem, the rage we felt is understandable but cannot be condoned. Our guests’ beliefs deserve as much respect as ours, especially when they have clarified their position. But we live in a strange time where my belief (read: facts) trumps everyone else’s.
A lot of folk on traditional and social media went out of their way to prove their loyalty to the state or the KP government which hosted the Afghan delegates. Chief Minister Ali Gandapur defended the Afghan diplomats, saying he accepted their explanation while the KP governor, Faisal Kundi described Gandapur as the chief minister of Afghanistan.
In this toxic battlefield that has created deep divisions which show no sign of healing, the media also chose sides.
One headline read: Gandapur “defends Afghan diplomat’s disrespect for national anthem” as if the act was intentional. Of course, readers would seethe.
I watched one news anchor use his YouTube channel to tell his audience to confront those who refuse to stand for the anthem. I’m pretty sure his anger was directed at PTI supporters for what he says is not distinguishing between state (ie anthem) and government.
It is problematic to police people’s choices. Perhaps a Pakistani chooses not to stand as a way to protest the state’s failure to protect its citizens’ rights.
Every country has its version of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ patriots. When American footballers were taking the knee — following the murder of George Floyd by the police in 2020 — as a way to protest racism, then US president Donald Trump said “maybe they shouldn’t be in the country”.
Narendra Modi has ignited hatred for Muslims in India. The British tabloid media is full of racist language about Muslims. One survey done earlier this year found an “almost statistical correlation bet-ween GB News view-ers and hate crime”.
I think it is unpatriotic to be ill-infor-med.
After all, the act of calling someone unpatriotic is rooted in propaganda and/or misinformation. Believing your leader is more patriotic than their opponents and running campaigns on this serves no purpose. It may win you more seats at the next (s)election but it does not prevent children from dying of pneumonia, the leading cause of death among children under five, according to Unicef. These deaths can be prevented through immunisation and one glance at the papers tells you how those drives are going.
This government’s not-so-slow-anymore erosion of our civil liberties has left us with few avenues of protest — we can’t tweet, we can’t even organise demonstrations without fear of reprisal. And a lot of the media is enabling this with their partisan positions, probably because their survival depends on it.
Patriotism is anti-poor and racist. In its current form, it is totalitarian, too. Patriotism works when democracy does because it allows all of us to peacefully coexist with our differences, with or without fervour.
The writer is a journalism instructor.
X: LedeingLady
Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024
Published September 22, 2024
DAWN
ONE of my favourite lessons in the classroom is on the use of descriptors and adjectives, and to demonstrate, I teach how national holidays like Aug 14 are reported. Since I began work as a journalist in 1995, I have read iterations of ‘Pakistanis celebrated such-and-such day with fervour’. The exercise on reporting on national holidays without using patriotism in the copy is a great lesson and also allows reflection on how we’ve been conditioned to think.
If we’re singing the anthem every day at school or the cinema, or waving flags at a ceremony, it does not necessarily mean we are patriotic. Habit does not equate fervour.
The opposite is also not true, ie, a person not waving flags etc is unpatriotic. Over the years, the weaponisation of ghaddar coupled with a highly inflammable society prone to violence has resulted in a deadly combination.
Patriotism has long been used to exclude communities — cementing stereotypes, creating divisions and keeping power in the hands of the elite.
Our guests’ beliefs deserve as much respect as ours.
I did not think a recommendation of Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 Against Our Will, about how men use rape to keep women in a state of fear, and its use in war by soldiers, would earn me a label of ‘anti-state’ by one student. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction when presented with something that goes against everything you’ve been taught. I don’t blame the student as much as I do the system that produced a factory of workers handing out certificates of patriotism.
I’ve been thinking this while watching the discussion around the Afghan diplomats not standing for Pakistan’s national anthem in KP. There is a lot of hysteria on YouTube and mainstream TV across the political divide. The diplomats’ explanation was pretty simple: they did not stand because the anthem contains music which they consider unIslamic; they meant no disrespect.
Because we are so conditioned into equating respect with standing for the national anthem, the rage we felt is understandable but cannot be condoned. Our guests’ beliefs deserve as much respect as ours, especially when they have clarified their position. But we live in a strange time where my belief (read: facts) trumps everyone else’s.
A lot of folk on traditional and social media went out of their way to prove their loyalty to the state or the KP government which hosted the Afghan delegates. Chief Minister Ali Gandapur defended the Afghan diplomats, saying he accepted their explanation while the KP governor, Faisal Kundi described Gandapur as the chief minister of Afghanistan.
In this toxic battlefield that has created deep divisions which show no sign of healing, the media also chose sides.
One headline read: Gandapur “defends Afghan diplomat’s disrespect for national anthem” as if the act was intentional. Of course, readers would seethe.
I watched one news anchor use his YouTube channel to tell his audience to confront those who refuse to stand for the anthem. I’m pretty sure his anger was directed at PTI supporters for what he says is not distinguishing between state (ie anthem) and government.
It is problematic to police people’s choices. Perhaps a Pakistani chooses not to stand as a way to protest the state’s failure to protect its citizens’ rights.
Every country has its version of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ patriots. When American footballers were taking the knee — following the murder of George Floyd by the police in 2020 — as a way to protest racism, then US president Donald Trump said “maybe they shouldn’t be in the country”.
Narendra Modi has ignited hatred for Muslims in India. The British tabloid media is full of racist language about Muslims. One survey done earlier this year found an “almost statistical correlation bet-ween GB News view-ers and hate crime”.
I think it is unpatriotic to be ill-infor-med.
After all, the act of calling someone unpatriotic is rooted in propaganda and/or misinformation. Believing your leader is more patriotic than their opponents and running campaigns on this serves no purpose. It may win you more seats at the next (s)election but it does not prevent children from dying of pneumonia, the leading cause of death among children under five, according to Unicef. These deaths can be prevented through immunisation and one glance at the papers tells you how those drives are going.
This government’s not-so-slow-anymore erosion of our civil liberties has left us with few avenues of protest — we can’t tweet, we can’t even organise demonstrations without fear of reprisal. And a lot of the media is enabling this with their partisan positions, probably because their survival depends on it.
Patriotism is anti-poor and racist. In its current form, it is totalitarian, too. Patriotism works when democracy does because it allows all of us to peacefully coexist with our differences, with or without fervour.
The writer is a journalism instructor.
X: LedeingLady
Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment