Independence is typically narrated as a singular, celebratory event, a midnight ceremony, a flag raised, a national song sung. However, independence is not just a moment, but a moral condition. It is impossible for a nation born in resistance to oppression to consider itself entirely independent while refusing to give attention to oppression elsewhere. Pakistan was established in 1947 out of a struggle against colonialism and is based on the idea that people have the right to self-determination. If it does not extend the principle to places beyond its borders, most urgently to Palestine, its independence is incomplete, not in terms of land, but in spirit.
The Echo of 1947 in Palestine’s Present
The Partition of British India and the formation of Pakistan were motivated by a denial of colonial rule and a desire for political independence; these desires were not just theoretical. They were rooted in real experiences of dispossession, disenfranchisement, and cultural-historical erasure under colonial rule. In this regard, the moral DNA of Pakistan’s creation is nearly identical to that of the Palestinian struggle.
In both cases, the central question is the same: do people have the right to determine their own political disposition devoid of any external control? For Palestinians, and in a parallel way, for Muslims in pre-Partition India, the answer has always been yes, yet the geopolitical reality machine continues to answer no.
The irony is evident. In 1947, the international community approved Pakistan’s claim to statehood as a moral and political request. Palestine’s claim, equally moral and urgent, has been largely muted. This dissonance should bother Pakistan precisely because it suggests that the moral principle at its foundation is not universal but selective, based on global power politics.
If Pakistan does not think about this dissonance, then it accepts that the principle that justified its own creation can be denied to others. That is not neutrality, it is complicity.
Solidarity as Political Responsibility, Not Charity
In popular discourse, solidarity with Palestine is represented as charity, as if we are acting out of decency and “supporting” a detached cause. Such framing is wrong. Solidarity is not charity. Charity rests on moral distance; you give, they take, and you can feel you have made things more ethical. Solidarity is different; it acknowledges that the freedom and dignity of others are connected to your own. Solidarity means you recognize their oppression as a continuation of the same systems that have threatened you in the past, and may again.
For Pakistan, solidarity with Palestine is not optional. It is a continuation of its own anti-colonial struggle in a different theatre. The colonial logic that once justified the partition of the subcontinent, the extraction of its resources, and the suppression of its people is the same logic that underwrites the occupation of Palestinian lands. Both are rooted in the same imperial grammar: that some lives are more entitled to sovereignty than others, and that “security” for some can justify dispossession for others.
This is not simply rhetorical. Consider, for example, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and the 1947 partition of India, both political creations of a departing imperial state, promoting their own aims in devolving power through changing territorial configurations. The local populations were the ones who paid the price, resulting in strategic borders drawn from a distance, while their political futures were handed over without their consent.
Even in contemporary geopolitics, this parallel is clear. The same set of international bodies that hesitated to enforce UN resolutions on Palestine also exhibits inconsistency regarding disputes related to Pakistan, such as Kashmir. In each case, “international law” becomes conditional, selectively applied depending on the power relations present.
A country that stands with Palestine is not engaging in a moral theatre. Rather, it is defending the political principle upon which it derives its legitimacy. A Pakistan that chooses to abandon that principle ultimately consents to the idea that sovereignty has caveats, that occupation can be normalized if enough time passes. Without such recognition, solidarity can devolve into a rehearsal, an Independence Day message, a ceremonial flag raising, a verbal “support” in speeches, without any structural potential.
The Inconvenience of Principles in Realpolitik
Expressing solidarity with Palestine is easy for Pakistan when it costs nothing. The question of test, however, arises when that solidarity competes with Pakistan’s economic, military, or diplomatic interests. History suggests true principled positions are only meaningful when inconvenient or when they require sacrifice or alter existing power relations.
This is the intersection of the notion of “true independence” and Pakistan’s reality of dependence. The foundation of Pakistan’s structural economic vulnerability is its reliance on foreign funding, aid, and trade with countries that either openly support Israel or tacitly endorse the state’s occupation of Palestine. Pakistan is historically reliant upon financial assistance via the IMF, and donor countries such as the US and Gulf states, which generally lean towards neutral or tacit support of Israel. Thus, these relationships establish quiet but persistent pressure to restrain public and private diplomatic criticism of Israel.
The realm of politics we are navigating is what political scientists call “realpolitik,” a kind of foreign policy where practical interests and power concerns trump ethical or ideological considerations. But the complication surfaces when pragmatism conflicts with moral obligation: is there a way for Pakistan to commit to a principled idea like Palestinian self-determination while managing the material aspects of its strategic and economic dependencies?
This results in a paradox: while the formal stance of Pakistan remains pro-Palestinian, economic and strategic realities sometimes limit Pakistan’s ability to translate its rhetoric into tangible policy. At the United Nations, Pakistan has voted in favor of Palestinian rights. However, even though this has symbolic value, it does not translate to economic or diplomatic action that could lead to Palestinian self-determination. The same can be said for its bilateral diplomacy: while stated solidarity exists, trade, investment, and security relationships with allies of Israel have constrained the scope of Pakistan’s actionable support.
The question here is not whether Pakistan should forgo pragmatism: all states are compelled to navigate realpolitik to protect their security and interests. The question is whether Pakistan’s pragmatism can be adapted to accommodate the principle of self-determination, even when it is inconvenient. True independence is not in supporting an issue when it is easy and popular; it is when one makes a principled stand despite economic cost or regional pressure. Solidarity with Palestine, in this light, becomes a litmus test. If Pakistan cannot champion self-determination abroad, its own claim to genuine, principled independence is undermined.
The Risk of Hollow Solidarity
Symbolic solidarity without structural follow-through can be harmful. It gives an impression of moral action, but it allows the underlying injustice to persist. There are often parallels made in narratives on Independence Day in Pakistan between its creation and the Palestinian cause. If these gestures are confined to the level of mere narrative, their meaning is negated. They can then become hollow rituals, acts of moral self-congratulation that require no real sacrifice.
Hollow solidarity is not harmless. It diminishes credibility. When a state loudly celebrates justice but does little about enacting anything meaningful, it communicates to its citizens and the international community that moral positions are negotiable. Such a lesson is corroding not only its foreign policy but its domestic governance, and advancing a political culture in which principles are rhetorically celebrated but rarely practiced.
The stakes are higher for Pakistan. Treating solidarity with Palestine as only a symbolic act suggests that Pakistan’s independence could be treated similarly; i.e., recognized in words but not recognized in reality. This is structural logic, not emotional; the same structural indifference, or selective recognition, that undermines Palestinian sovereignty would apply to Pakistan, assuming it allowed moral principle to be entirely subjugated to expedience. A nation’s political maturity can be gauged in its willingness to defend causes that offer no immediate material benefit. Defending principles with no material expectation of gain is much more difficult.
If Pakistan can stick to that commitment even when inconvenient, with trade relationships, diplomatic alliances, and financial constraints, then it is true independence, not just a ceremonial one. Conversely, if Pakistan refuses to honor these principles, this ideology is representative of a conditional independence, one subject to the pressures that created it in the first place. Thus, moral consistency abroad and political maturity at home cannot be separate; the true test of independence is a readiness to act on principle, regardless of the consequences.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s Independence Day should not be a day of uncritical self-congratulation, but a sober reckoning of whether the country is fulfilling the principles of 1947 or not. One of those principles, self-determination, is not only the basis for Pakistan’s founding, but also the moral pathway to Palestine’s struggle.
To ignore that pathway is to amputate how Pakistan’s history is entwined with that of self-determination in Palestine. To walk that pathway together is to affirm that independence is not a flag or a border, but a living commitment to justice, one that goes beyond a mere accident of geography or a bounded notion of national self-interest.
The work of freedom is never done. Pakistan will achieve true independence when its solidarity is not just spoken but lived, when it can act for Palestine with the same moral urgency that once demanded the world stand for it.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Momina Areej is currently pursuing an MPhil in Clinical Pharmacy Practice. With a passion for writing, she covers diverse topics including world issues, literature reviews, and poetry, bringing insightful perspectives to each subject. Her writing blends critical analysis with creative expression, reflecting her broad interests and academic background.