The Bollywood actress’ February tweet praising the Indian Armed Forces for their failed strike against Pakistan and her recent defense thereof as “patriotic” contravene the principles that a UN “Goodwill” Ambassador such as herself are supposed to embody and should thus result in her being stripped of this influential role.
Bollywood actress Priyanka Chopra sparked controversy with her February tweet praising the Indian Armed forces for their failed strike against Pakistan and recently reignited a firestorm in her defense thereof as “patriotic” in response to a fan’s call for her to be stripped of her role as a UN “Goodwill” Ambassador because of it. Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Human Rights Shireen Mazari jumped into the controversy earlier this week by demanding the same, tweeting that “UNICEF needs to remove Priyanka Chopra as its ambassador immediately in the wake of her support for Indian army and Rogue Modi govt. Otherwise it makes a mockery of such appointments. UNICEF should really be more careful on whom it appoints to these honorary positions”. UN Goodwill Ambassadors are supposed to embody the opposite principles that Priyanka stands for, using their global roles to encourage international peace and solidarity with the oppressed, not virtue signal “patriotic” support for an aggressive attack for the sake of winning over more fans and tacitly supporting the military occupation of Kashmir.
The bestowing of a UN Goodwill Ambassador role onto someone is a two-way street that brings positive publicity to both the individual that it’s awarded to and the global organization, with it being understood that the recipient will not go against the UN’s stance on any issue. If anything, they’re expected to support a heightened UN role in resolving international disputes, not back unilateral military aggression against a neighboring state in violation of international law and on false flag pretexts (e.g. blaming Pakistan for the Pulwama incident without any evidence ever having publicly emerged of this purported connection whatsoever). Priyanka has the right to support her national military, but not to do so while also holding the role of a UN “Goodwill” Ambassador because she impugns the respected reputation of this position through her actions. She probably won’t resign, and it’s uncertain at this moment whether the organization will strip her of this prestigious privilege, but the controversy that her words created serves to remind the world of India’s rogue state status and its recent unilateral “Israeli”-like moves in Kashmir, thus harming its international image.
DISCLAIMER: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.