By Agha Iqrar Haroon
An Afghan postgraduate doctor was arrested while on duty at Sahiwal Teaching Hospital in Pakistan over a visa extension issue, a move that has drawn widespread debate on social media. Those who criticized his arrest argued that Afghans are our brothers, that they are fellow Muslims, and that a doctor on duty should not have been arrested. They also argued that he should have been allowed to complete his further education. First question arises that what law says that a doctor involved in breaking the law cannot be arrested while performing medical duties in a hospital?
Since the 1980s, three major narratives have been established regarding Afghans in Pakistan:
- Afghans are Muslims; therefore, they should have the right to live in or be allowed to stay in Pakistan.
- Afghans are Muslim brothers with historical, linguistic, and cultural ties to Pakistan; therefore, they should be allowed to live in Pakistan.
- Afghans are Pashtuns, and many families live on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; therefore, they should have the right to live in Pakistan.
Since the 1980s, a pro-Afghan mindset has developed based on the above premises, and challenging these premises has generally not been encouraged in Pakistan. According to this view, this approach has had serious consequences for Pakistan, the results of which are now evident. All three major premises should be examined critically through simple questions and answers.
The first premise is: “Afghans are Muslims; therefore, they should have the right to live in or be allowed to stay in Pakistan.” The question is: Are Afghans the only Muslims in the world besides Pakistanis? The answer is no. Should Pakistan, then, allow the entire Muslim population of the world to live in the country without valid travel or residence documents? The simple answer is no. There is no such thing as a “Muslim visa” that allows Muslims from around the world to live in any Muslim-majority country without obtaining a valid visa from the host country.
The second premise is: “Afghans have historical, linguistic, and cultural linkages with Pakistan; therefore, they should be allowed to live in Pakistan.” If the same premise is applied consistently, then Pakistan should also allow Indian citizens of Sindhi, Punjabi, and Kashmiri origin to live in Pakistan because the culture, language, traditions, and history of Indian Punjab and Pakistani Punjab are closely linked. Similarly, Indian Sindhis and Pakistan’s Sindh share common cultural roots, as do Indian and Pakistani Kashmiris.
The third premise is that Afghans are Pashtuns and that families live on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; therefore, they should have the right to travel/live in Pakistan without legal documentations. Using the same logic, Indian Punjabis, Indian Sindhis, and Indian Kashmiris should have the same right to travel/live or stay in Pakistan without legal documentations because the Partition of 1947 divided their families between two countries, and relatives continue to live on both sides of the border.
Another premise often presented is that Afghanistan is a friendly country. This premise, too, is historically disputed. Afghanistan was the only country that opposed Pakistan’s admission as an independent state to the United Nations. It was also the first country to undertake military action against Pakistan during the Bajaur campaigns of 1960–64, even before the Indo-Pakistani War was fought on internationally recognized borders (as the Kashmir conflict was not fought entirely on internationally recognized international borders). Afghanistan was also the first country to provide asylum to anti-Pakistan elements, particularly those from Balochistan, beginning in the early 1970s, and, according to this view, it continues the same policy today.
Furthermore, the total number of casualties suffered by Pakistan in all Indo-Pak wars is, according to this argument, less than 30 percent of the casualties caused by terrorism allegedly sponsored from Afghanistan. This raises the question of how Afghanistan can be considered a friendly country while India is regarded as the principal rival when, according to this perspective, the economic, human, and cultural costs imposed on Pakistan by Afghanistan have been greater than those resulting from hostility with India.
Additionally, history shows that Kabul and New Delhi have often cooperated against Pakistan. If that is the case, how can one be regarded as a friend while the other is considered an enemy?
Can pro-Afghan intellectuals, politicians, social media influencers, journalists, bureaucrats, academics, traders, and religious scholars answer the above-mentioned questions?
