Pakistanis speak passionately about Palestine.
The language is moral, historical, and emotional. Displacement is condemned. Occupation is rejected. The right of return is treated as sacred.
Yet there is another displaced Muslim community, far closer to our own history, that barely enters our national conversation: the Bihari Muslims stranded after 1971.
This contrast raises an unavoidable question.
Is our solidarity universal, or is it selective?
Who Were the Bihari Muslims?
The Bihari Muslims were Urdu-speaking migrants from India who, after 1947, moved to what was then East Pakistan. Many did so out of loyalty to the idea of Pakistan and its promise of Muslim political security.
When the civil war of 1971 led to the creation of Bangladesh, Biharis were viewed as collaborators with the Pakistani state. Thousands were killed. Many more were pushed into camps. Their citizenship status became disputed overnight.
For decades, large numbers of them lived in statelessness.
Some were later granted Bangladeshi citizenship by court rulings. Others remained in limbo. Pakistan accepted a limited number during the 1970s and 1980s, then quietly closed the door.
The issue faded. The people did not.
The Palestinian Cause and Moral Clarity
Pakistan’s support for the Palestinian cause has been consistent since 1948. The position is framed around international law, opposition to occupation, and solidarity with a displaced population denied sovereignty.
That stance is neither accidental nor cynical. Pakistan itself was born out of displacement and partition. The language of injustice resonates deeply.
But this is precisely why the comparison with the Bihari Muslims is so uncomfortable.
A Question of Consistency
If displacement is the core moral injury, then it should matter regardless of geography.
If the right of return is a principle, then it should not depend on whether the displaced population is politically convenient.
If Muslim solidarity is invoked, then proximity should strengthen responsibility, not weaken it.
Yet in practice, the opposite has happened.
Supporting Palestine requires no material sacrifice from Pakistan.
Addressing the Bihari issue would require decisions on citizenship, resettlement, and historical accountability.
One cause is symbolic.
The other is costly.
Why Silence Persisted
There are several reasons why the Bihari question never became central to Pakistan’s moral narrative.
First, it forces a confrontation with 1971. That year remains politically sensitive, selectively remembered, and often avoided.
Second, it exposes state responsibility. The failure was not external. It was ours.
Third, there was no international pressure. No global movement. No strategic incentive.
Silence, in this case, was easier than reckoning.
Is This Duplicity?
The word is harsh, but it cannot be dismissed outright.
When a society champions justice abroad while avoiding responsibility at home, its moral position weakens. This does not invalidate support for Palestine. It contextualizes it.
Moral clarity cannot be partitioned.
What This Is Not
This is not an argument against Palestinians.
This is not a dismissal of Israeli occupation.
This is not an attempt to relativize suffering.
It is an argument about credibility.
A nation that claims to stand with the oppressed must be willing to examine its own record, not just point outward.
The Harder Solidarity
It is easy to stand with victims when the cost is rhetorical.
It is harder when the cost is political, financial, and historical.
Pakistan chose the easier path.
That choice does not erase Palestinian suffering.
But it does demand honesty about our own selective empathy.
Until we can speak about Bihari Muslims with the same seriousness we reserve for Palestinians, our moral language will remain powerful — and incomplete.
Comments
Post a Comment