As an ardent nationalist, I agree with your point of view, but still, it’s imperative to do a critical analysis of this tweet. Acknowledging diversity is one thing (functionally indispensable), but actively propagating it has adverse ramifications for the state of Pakistan. https://twitter.com/MHuzaifaNizam/status/1361293434053656577

I'll try to expound on it in the following lines

1. Our Nationalism can be characterized as Muslim Territorial Nationalism. In sum, people of Indus who share a common religion which makes them distinct have created a political Union. In this context,

Ethno-linguistic assertiveness - legitimized by regional culture and distinct history- always is detrimental to our conception of a nation-state. What is a nation? and what holds that nation together? Is it Culture? Language? History? Sect? Political Ideology? Geography?

Ethnicity? In our case, in the words of Quaid,"What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man, and is the bedrock and sheet-anchor of the community. It is Islam" - Dec 26, 1943. Hence, in our peculiar context, cultural particularism is inherently exclusionary and divisive

2. Furthermore, cultural chauvinism – legitimized by historical romanticism - inadvertently paves way for particularism, eventually leading to racism. As Micheal Dibdin famously said, "There can be no true friends without true enemies.

Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are".PTM is just one manifestation

3. Proceeding ahead, If we take a cursory look at the history of Indus, the hero of one group is invariably the villain of the other. It is Identity determines the interpretation of events

Was Ranjit Singh good or bad? Ask a Punjabi secular, Islamist, and Pukhtoon secular simultaneously. How about Mughals? Ask a Pukhtoon. How about Abdali? Ask a Punjabi. Dogras? Good or bad? Ask Kashmiri nationalist.

Also, was the history of Indus a coherent whole? From what I have deduced based upon my rudimentary knowledge, Indus has always been the natural boundary b/w empires. So, Is the Indus Saga an academic construct or a reality?

4. Another connotation is Identity politics. As per Francis Fukuyama, in such instances, politics / political views are determined not on the basis of their merit or any other consideration but rather by questions of identity. How will an Evangelical Christian vote?

Most probably, Republican. Black? Democrat for sure. So, if the state of Pak is propagating the differences (unwittingly), don’t you think that this might lead to identity politics? Pakhtuns for ANP, Punjabis for Punjabi League Nawaz, Sindhis for PPP, Jiye Mahaz. Muhajirs for MQM

Again, this will lead to excruciating polarization, hollow out the middle ground and undermine the federation of Pakistan

5. Moreover, even if we subscribe to this region-based approach, are Democracy and federalism enough to hold Pakistan together? From a functional perspective

, yes, they play a pivotal role in holding a heterogenous polity together but they are not an end in itself. If democracy and federalism are enough to hold culturally disparate groups together, then why don’t we become the 51st state of the USA?

Federalism and democracy will be guaranteed!

6. The last thing that our federation needs is an ethno-linguistically assertive majority. Imagine Punjabis asserting themselves at the expense of others. What will happen to our lingua franca? What will happen to their relative

generous nature at National Finance Commission? What will happen to their inclusive nature towards ethnicities migrating to Punjab? Can we even contemplate that?

7. Where does this region based ideological framework leave our Urdu speaking community?

They obviously aren’t from the land of Indus.

8. Culture transcends boundaries. So, what about Lar o Bar o yo Afghan chaps; Muslim and Sikh Punjabis; Baloch from Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Sistan, and Afg teaming up. So, what does that mean for a fragile state like Pakistan?

P.S: I don't adhere to the view that centuries-old culture and traditions can be suppressed.