The day on social media began with an article by Zorin Nizamani. The piece was shared widely. It was praised by some. It was questioned by others. To understand the article, you must first understand the background of the writer.
.png)
Zorin Nizamani belongs to Pakistan’s one percent elite. His parents are well known public figures from the entertainment industry. His father has served as a member of parliament. The writer himself is a PhD student at an American university. This background matters because privilege shapes perspective. It also shapes silence.
Pakistanis living abroad often show a clear pattern. They rarely comment on the policies, systems, or power structures of the countries they live in. Many avoid public criticism entirely. Some even delete their social media accounts once they secure government or institutional jobs. Their caution is visible. Their restraint is consistent.
At the same time, their concern for Pakistan appears constant. They speak loudly about Pakistan’s flaws. They highlight failures. They amplify negative narratives. This contrast raises a fair question. Why is criticism selective? Why does accountability stop at national borders?
You will not find this writer challenging the American establishment. You will not see him write against Israeli actions in Gaza. You will not see him question US military interventions across the world. You will not read his views on the destruction of Iraq. Silence remains his strongest position on these issues.
Even closer to home, the silence continues. There is no critique of the Pakistan Peoples Party’s three decades of rule in Sindh. There is no discussion on private jails. There is no mention of karo kari. These practices still exist under feudal protection. They shape lives daily. They rarely trend online.
This is not surprising. Privilege reduces urgency. A person raised with access, security, and global education does not face the same risks. Comfort limits confrontation. That reality does not require defense. It only requires honesty.
In Pakistan, statements from political leaders often go unchallenged. When a leader claims that nations are not built by roads, educated audiences applaud. Students agree. Engineers support it. Business owners repeat it. This response shows how narratives spread. It also shows how easily logic is replaced by loyalty.
The article in question reflects emotional reasoning. It shows a mindset shaped by online influence. Social media rewards outrage. It punishes nuance. Many writers adjust accordingly.
Those who complain about restrictions on free speech often ignore global realities. In developed countries, public figures face consequences for challenging state policy. Accounts are suspended. Platforms enforce limits. Institutions protect themselves. This is documented and visible.
In Pakistan, criticism is open and constant. Television, newspapers, and social media host daily attacks on the state, the government, and institutions. At the same time, claims of complete censorship continue. Both statements cannot stand without context.
The debate on brain drain follows the same pattern. Critics warn of national collapse. They rarely explain their own long term residence abroad. They rarely ask why access should remain exclusive. If someone benefits from stability, systems, and services abroad, others will seek the same path.
At independence, Pakistan’s western region had a population of three crore. Today, the same land supports around twenty five crore people. If a few hundred thousand leave each year, the impact must be measured proportionally. Migration alone does not equal failure.
Over time, overseas Pakistanis contribute foreign exchange. They support families. They invest in property. They fund education. Their role is complex. It cannot be reduced to slogans.
There is also a deeper issue. Certain narratives operate like cult thinking. They simplify problems. They divide society. They reject institutions entirely. This mindset damages national cohesion. It needs to be challenged with facts and balance.
Engagement by state institutions with students and universities is not the core issue. The real issue is countering misinformation. Poisoned narratives must be addressed. Silence allows them to grow.
Conditions in Pakistan are not perfect. They are also not collapsing beyond repair. Overseas voices do not need to spend all their energy attacking those who live here. Constructive engagement would serve the country better.
For now, Zorin Nizamani may wish to focus on the ceremony scheduled for March 23 at the President House. His parents will receive the Sitara e Imtiaz. This honor reflects the state’s approach.
It is one of the paradoxes of Pakistan. Even those who criticize it relentlessly are recognized by it. The state responds with awards. The criticism continues. This contrast defines the current discourse.
