Asif Mahmood

Asma Jahangir was a respected figure, and holding conferences or references in her memory is, in principle, a commendable act. Yet the recent Asma Jahangir Conference raises a series of questions that deserve serious reflection.

The first question is a recurring one. What exactly brings the German ambassador to this forum every time? Is it possible that an event wrapped in the language of human rights and Asma Jahangir’s legacy has a financial source linked to Germany? And if funding is indeed involved, does it arrive alone, or does an accompanying agenda travel with it, much like a fixed bus route with predetermined stops?

The second question concerns precedent. In the past, references held in Asma Jahangir’s name were attended by chief justices and senior judges, while politicians competed to display their eloquence. What was essentially a private reference began to resemble a national ceremony. Has anyone ever asked why such high constitutional offices felt compelled to be present, and what message that presence conveyed?

The third question is about consistency and principle. On a previous occasion, when the German ambassador was asked a question about Palestine, he appeared visibly annoyed and reprimanded the questioner. This time, when a similar question was raised, the person was simply removed from the hall. Why? Does this not raise a serious issue about the sanctity of questioning itself? Or is it that the rules of so called liberalism change depending on who is asking and whom the question is directed at?

If a young man can be expelled from the hall for questioning the German ambassador, why was the woman who shouted “shut up” at Rana Sanaullah not treated the same way? Why were those chanting slogans against the state and raising divisive cries allowed to remain? If discipline and decorum are the standard, should they not apply equally to all?

The final question invites a reversal of perspective. If this were Germany, if such a conference were held there, if calls undermining the German state were raised, and if the guest of honor were Pakistan’s ambassador, what would Germany’s reaction be?

So one must ask, plainly and without malice: is this truly freedom of expression, or is it the selective promotion of a particular agenda under its cover?