Pakistan’s Double Standard and the Global Need for Shared Humanity

I just listened to this podcast from Pakistani intellectuals and it made me think.

Religion has long been a powerful force in shaping societies, but its role in public life varies widely across the globe. In secular democracies, religion is often treated as a private matter, distinct from governance. In others, like Pakistan, religion is inextricably intertwined with national identity, political discourse, and global posturing. This asymmetry has produced a double standard that warrants closer examination, not to vilify any one nation, but to ask a pressing question: can we imagine a world where humanity comes before religious identity?

A Nation Consumed by Religious Identity

In Pakistan, Islam is not just a faith; it is the organizing principle of society, politics, education, and even foreign policy. The country’s constitution declares it an Islamic republic. Blasphemy laws, religious edicts, and faith based litmus tests for public office are not fringe elements—they are deeply embedded in the structure of the state.

The Pakistani intelligentsia—comprising scholars, commentators, and cultural influencers—often doubles down on this religious framing. Whether discussing foreign policy, internal development, or societal issues, their reference point is frequently Islamic. Islamic solidarity, Islamic economics, Islamic values—the prefix becomes a mantra. News panels debate the ummah (global Muslim community) more passionately than domestic poverty or governance reform.

This pervasive religiosity is not just inward facing. It colors how Pakistan engages with the world and how it expects the world to engage with it. This is where the contradiction begins.

The Paradox of Demanding Secularism from Others

While Pakistan asks the world to acknowledge and accommodate Islamic identity—through campaigns against Islamophobia, support for Muslim causes, and even diplomatic alignments—it paradoxically demands that other societies, especially India and the West, remain secular and neutral.

Calls for Islamic brotherhood are often juxtaposed with accusations that nations like India are becoming “Hindu majoritarian” or that France is “hostile to Muslims” when enforcing secular policies. In essence, there’s a glaring asymmetry: what Pakistan embraces as identity is expected to be tolerated or even celebrated, while similar expressions by others are labeled extremist or exclusionary.

This contradiction is not lost on observers, nor is it helpful in building bridges between cultures. It breeds mistrust, feeds polarization, and creates fertile ground for ideological clashes.

Hindutva: Assertion or Aggression?

Nowhere is this tension more evident than in the discourse around India’s “Hindutva.” The term is often invoked pejoratively by Pakistani commentators and some global analysts to suggest a rising tide of Hindu nationalism. But such assessments frequently ignore the context in which Hindutva has emerged.

For decades, secularism in India was interpreted—at least by its detractors—as a policy that disproportionately appeased religious minorities while sidelining the majority Hindu sentiment. In contrast, Indian Muslims were not just allowed but encouraged to preserve their religious and cultural identity. Personal laws based on religion existed. Mosques could broadcast the call to prayer freely. Politicians routinely visited minority shrines and festivals.

In such an environment, Hindutva—literally “Hinduness”—can be seen as a cultural reassertion rather than a call for supremacy. It reflects the view that if others wear their faith proudly and publicly, Hindus too should be able to do the same without being demonized. It’s a message of reciprocity, not revenge.

Of course, like any political movement, Hindutva has its extremes. But it is intellectually dishonest to view every expression of Hindu identity through the lens of fascism while giving other communities a free pass to do exactly what is being criticized.

The Unequal Terms of Global Discourse

This selective lens is not unique to Pakistan. Across the global media and diplomatic spaces, there exists a hesitancy to critique Islamic exceptionalism. Perhaps this is born of a desire to avoid offending religious sensitivities or a historical overcorrection for colonial wrongs.

But this overcorrection distorts the conversation. It prevents honest dialogue. When religion is placed beyond critique—when one faith is perpetually portrayed as a victim and another as an oppressor—it skews public perception and policymaking alike.

This double standard creates resentment, not just among Hindu Indians, but among secular voices everywhere who see the imbalance. It undermines efforts to build inclusive societies and instead fuels identity based politics in every direction.

The Path Not Taken: Choosing Humanity Over Division

There is another path, though it is less traveled. What if societies—especially those burdened by religious radicalism—chose to emphasize shared humanity rather than religious exceptionalism?

Pakistan, for example, could redirect its national energy toward building a modern, inclusive state based on equality, education, and human rights. It could engage with its neighbors not as a representative of Islam but as a sovereign state committed to mutual prosperity.

This would not require abandoning faith. Far from it. It would mean embracing a form of religiosity that is introspective rather than assertive, compassionate rather than confrontational. Religion would remain a moral compass, not a political weapon.

India, too, would benefit from this approach. If its cultural reassertion can be grounded in pluralism rather than triumphalism, it can serve as a model for how identity and inclusion can coexist. The goal must not be religious dominance but mutual respect.

A World Reimagined

Imagine a world where countries are not defined by how loudly they proclaim their religious identity, but by how well they treat their people—regardless of faith. A world where it’s not unusual for a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Christian to be friends, neighbors, business partners, and political allies—not despite their faiths, but in recognition of a shared human experience.

This is not naïve idealism. It is a political, cultural, and moral imperative in an era marked by polarization. Social media, migration, and economic interdependence have made borders porous and identities plural. We cannot afford to retreat into rigid religious silos.

The Courage to Be Fair

What the global conversation needs now is intellectual honesty and moral courage. It takes courage for a Muslim majority country like Pakistan to ask why religious minorities are fleeing, or why non Muslim citizens feel alienated. It takes courage for Indian leaders to ensure that their cultural pride does not slip into exclusion. It takes courage for journalists and scholars to critique religious radicalism wherever it originates—whether from Wahhabist preachers or nationalist demagogues.

But without this courage, we are doomed to keep fighting the same battles, trading accusations while the world burns around us.

Final Thoughts

It’s time to stop demanding exceptionalism for some while denying dignity to others. It’s time to challenge double standards that allow one community to wear religion as a badge of honor while painting another’s as a threat. It’s time to move from identity politics to shared humanity.

We will not build a peaceful world by shouting louder about who we are. We will build it by listening more to what we all share.

If we all believed a little less in the superiority of our own faiths and a little more in the equality of our human experience, we might just find the peace we’ve been preaching all along.

If you found this article thought provoking, share it. Challenge a bias. Start a conversation. The world doesn’t need more silence, it needs more clarity.