The Dangerous Punjabi Supremacy Narrative
Equally dangerous is the rhetoric that Punjab “owns” Lahore or that non-Punjabis must earn the right to study there. This logic fractures the very idea of Pakistan. The same reasoning could be applied in reverse elsewhere, and once that logic spreads, the federation becomes transactional and fragile.
Pakistan was not built as a confederation of ethnic silos. It was built as a shared political project. Turning every debate into a Punjab-versus-the-rest narrative is exactly how 1971 happened.
Those invoking Bengali resentment as proof of Punjabi fault also miss the lesson: alienation grows when dialogue collapses into dominance narratives. The cure is inclusion, not ethnic entitlement.
Is LUMS Afraid — Or Are We?
The real question is not whether LUMS is afraid of Mohsin Dawar.
The real question is whether we, as a society, are afraid of dissent.
If the solution to disagreement is “go to Afghanistan,” “ban them from Punjab,” or “deport critics,” then we are not defending Pakistan. We are weakening it from within.
Pakistan is strong enough to survive a lecture. Punjab is strong enough to tolerate criticism. KP is strong enough to handle disagreement. A confident federation does not panic at speech.
The Way Forward
We need less ethnic theatrics and more constitutional maturity. Universities must promote structured dialogue. Administrations must communicate clearly when decisions are made. Political actors must stop weaponizing identity for short-term applause.
And citizens must reject the reflex that every criticism of power is an attack on an ethnicity.
If #FreedomToSpeak is reduced to a trend instead of a tradition, we will continue mistaking insecurity for patriotism.
The federation will not collapse because someone speaks.
It collapses when we stop listening.
