These recent days a large diplomatic issue has come up in Pakistan, about which people across the country and mainly Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) are discussing. Organized as the Seerat-un-Nabi Conference in order to celebrate the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the act of the Afghan ambassador who refused to get up during Pakistani national anthem has been met with criticism. This event has not only developed into a popular trend of conversation but it has also paved way for further and intensified dialogues about diplomatic manners, cultural norms as well as the brewing hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
What Happened?
In the seerat un nabi conference held last week the Afghan ambassador was captured on camera sitting during the playing of the national anthem of Pakistan which many Pakistanis regarded as a slap on the face to Pakistan. In most countries the practice of standing during the performance of the national anthem is something that is accepted by audiences including foreign envoys. However, the ambassador further defended himself saying that he did not stand up when the anthem was being played because he is a Muslim and does not condone music. He said that when he remained seated then it was in compliance with the Islamic law, which has banned the use of instruments during certain performances.
The Reaction in Pakistan
The conduct of the ambassador precipitated a very fierce backlash from many people in Pakistan particularly the media as well as the public. Many opponents have not hesitated to point a genetic disrespect towards Pakistan and symbols of the State. The social networks became full of comments with many of the people expressing their anger and calling the act a direct violation of the national pride and states’ sovereignty. However, various journalists specifically a certain group of Pakistani journalists who are criticized for being partial and government-sycophants commonly known as ‘Lifafy Sahafi’ have been very vocal in expressing their sentiments calling the incident as a sheer insult to Pakistan.
As the latter says, for such critics the siting during the national anthem has nothing to do with personal or religious feelings. But they view it as a sign of standing up to the Pakistani state and challenging its authority in every way possible. Some have mentioned that, being a diplomat the ambassador is to follow the protocols of the country she/he is serving in regardless of the beliefs.
Then we will have to look at religious arguments and diplomatic etiquette.
Though, based on the testimony of the ambassador the rationale has been advanced to be grounded on the prohibition of music in the religious books, this reason has not been received by all. Some of them say that even though the islamic views on music differ, diplomatic etiquette demands that the delegation respect the customs of the host country. Also, the national anthem is not only a song but the sign of what unites people and their pride of their country. For a diplomat, continued to sit during its playing is deviation from normal etiquette, which many consider as a sign of disrespect.
That said, there is also a rather subtle bibliophilic consideration here of religion and diplomacy as genres. As has been seen in the Islamic tradition there are indeed prohibitive or non-prescribed opinions as to the use of music particularly in sacred contexts. However these interpretations are not implemented all over the Muslim world and there are various sects and schools of thought that do differ on such issues. Therefore, what the ambassador perceives to be religious sense may not necessarily be the same as how other people would perceive the situation particularly a diplomatic one.
Pakistan Establishment neither supported India for victory in Kargil sector nor fought for its defeat 11
Other than the political and religious ideologies there are some who have pre conditioned this event as a political one which depicts the tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no doubt that the relations between the two neighboring countries have always been quite sour over borders, political interventions, and conflicts within each other’s territories, and involving the Taliban and other militant groups, which have further led the relations to worst in the past few years.
Other critics claim that the ambassador’s action is in response to how the Pakistan has treated Afghanistan in the past. Since long time Afghan leaders and officials have blamed Pakistani for providing support to the militant groups who are instability in Afghanistan. To such critics, the failure of the ambassador to rise for the national anthem is perceived as a clear campaign against Pakistan’s interference in the affairs of Afghanistan. They claim that although the ambassador’s actions are considered rude, it is a result of the increasing anger and animosity that majority of Afghans have towards the Pakistan government’s stance. Pakistan’s Diplomatic Response
At the moment the Pakistani government has not come up with any official statement concerning the occurrence. However, diplomatic gurus are clearly observing how Islamabad will do so. Most of the time, cases that involve diplomats are dealt with a lot of precautions since a diplomatic-related issue can go a very long way. If the government wants to regulate the matter it can do so diplomatically by filing a formal protest, or asking for an explanation through official channels.
In contrast, public dogma is being brought forward demanding a stronger approach to the problem. A large number of Pakistani people, and the frustrated those by ambassador, for instance, require the government to be tougher. They assert that Pakistan needs to protect its sovereignty and should not turn a blind eye to such actions particularly bearing in mind the hostile relations, which used to exist between the two nations.
Conclusion
The case with the Afghan ambassador who declined to rise when the Pakistani national anthem was being played has sparked off a number of discourses, a question the diplomatic etiquette and shameless fundamentalism on one hand, and political antagonisms between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the other. While the ambassador states that his actions were based on religious principles most people in Pakistan consider it as an act of disrespect. The reaction from “lifafy sahafi” as well as the general public elicits feelings of nationalism and pride to the government to responsafari the incident.
Besides, the event has also raised the question of Afghan-Pak relations where even gesture can mean a lot of politics. It is still uncertain as to whether this specific controversy would develop into a more extensive diplomatic issue; however, it underlines the importance of the diplomatic missions’ work and the challenge that diplomats face whilst negotiating the foreign policy of their countries on one hand, and on the other hand, recognizing and adapting to the cultures of the host countries that they are in.
