The Mechanics of Feelings, Thoughts, and Awareness

By Saman Aftab Since the world has deliberated a lot to find a workable solution of plastic pollution, it is imperative to underscore the significance of most promising eco- friendly solutions to curb the plastic menace. The non-degradable nature of synthetic plastics is contaminating terrestrial and aquatic eco systems. Moreover, the disastrous effects of microplastics (extremely tiny plastic pieces) on human nervous system development, hormonal balance and reproductive system are becoming evident with scientific research. Hence, plastic pollution has become a grave concern not only for the environment but also for human health. It is a well-documented fact that the current strategies to deal with disposing of synthetic plastic are not sufficient to get rid of this man made pollution. Landfilling is littering the water bodies as the leachate escaping from the landfills causes the contamination of water. Similarly, incineration (burning of plastic waste) leads to air pollution in turn causing several health hazard in the surroundings. Even, recycling of plastic seems to be highly expensive when dealing with enormous amounts of mix plastic wastes in developing countries like Pakistan. However, as a bioremediative strategy, biodegradation holds promising prospects. Biodegradation of plastic simply means the use of microorganisms (including bacteria and fungi etc.) that have the capability of degrading petroleum based plastic in such a manner that would render the synthetic plastic degraded in the environment. Such microbial strains are present ubiquitously in those environments where plastics are dumped such as landfills. The researchers have not only isolated such strains but also managed to produce genetically modified bacteria/fungi capable of easily degrading synthetic plastics. Even the microbial enzymes of such microorganisms have been employed for such purposes as to study the intricacies of the biodegradation process only to make it more effective in the future. Pakistan is one of the countries where the use and misuse of plastic allows the environment to host such microbial strains capable of decomposing plastic in abundance. Having keen interest in this topic, I myself have isolated and identified several bacterial and fungal strains in my research work of MPhil titled “Biodegradation of plastics by locally isolated microorganisms”. Moreover, I have contributed a chapter on “Role of microbes in microplastic removal and its health effect on human health” in a book titled “Advanced treatment technologies for the removal of microplastics in wastewater”. Similarly, I have authored another chapter on “The role of microbial enzymes in the degradation of plastics- a sustainable tool for waste management” in an Elsevier book titled “Plastic waste valorization”. Hence, in my humble opinion, the optimization of biodegradation process can be exploited in an industrial setup where synthetic plastics would be degraded in the same manner as biological/microbiological systems are used to treat industrial wastewater. The scientists around the world are working day and night to come up with innovative strategies of plastic waste removal without deteriorating our environment. China, for example is working to convert mix plastic waste into hydrogen fuel but that is too expensive for the time being. In our country we hear about the banning of single use plastic specifically polyethylene shopping bags from our policy makers on and off. However, its enforcement never takes into effect. In fact, since hundreds and thousands of people are associated with the industry of plastic production, it is not wise to disrupt this supply chain abruptly without providing people with other feasible options. The introduction of biodegradable plastic as an alternative is overrated. The biodegradable plastic has shown to last much longer in the environment than what it promises and its production cost makes it too expensive to replace conventional plastic in the market. Whereas, Biodegradation of plastic still offers much hope to tackle plastic pollution. The dearth of resources and governmental assistance is the only hindrance, otherwise Pakistan has the potential to streamline an effective plastic waste management plan pivoted around biodegradation and become a global leader in this regard. I request the authorities to pay attention and incentivize researchers to explore this area of research for national good in particular and international benefit in general. Even if the unlikely consensus on plastic production cap is reached, still the world will need to streamline the process of plastic waste management. And, out of all plastic waste management techniques including incineration, landfilling and recycling, biodegradation is the most ecofriendly process of getting rid of hazardous plastics. The governments all across the globe must encourage their researchers to explore plastic degrading microorganism and optimize the process of biodegradation to get effective outcomes. The writer has done MPhil in Microbiology from GCU Lahore

The role of media should not be confined to disseminating news and information but must also highlight public awareness regarding climate change. The media, in its reporting, is required to use appropriate terminology and diction to raise awareness, highlight the causes, and provide a way forward. The media, in its reporting, is expected to project the environment not as a resource to be used by humans but as a living environmental and ecological process that must not be disturbed by humans. For example, while writing such reports, if the media says that natural resources are diminishing or facing extinction, it must similarly highlight that the environmental system is being affected or impacted negatively . Recent studies have also reinforced this perspective. Penz and Fill (2022) observe that ecolinguistics promotes and fosters environmental awareness while supporting and strengthening the connection between humans and nature for sustainable development. In this context, Alexander and Stibbe (2014) argue that ecolinguistics plays a key role in highlighting the relationship between humans and the environment, as well as its impact on addressing environmental challenges and shaping a sustainable future. It is pertinent to highlight that while reporting any incident about environmental degradation or natural disasters, the media, apart from reporting, is also expected to provide solutions and a way forward to help face such incidents in the future. In reports about floods, wildfires, and rising temperatures, the media is also required to provide guidance and suggestions on how to combat or lessen the impacts of such environmental changes. The reporting must not be based only on presenting news and subsequently creating fear or chaos but must also give a sense of hope among people that through various techniques and the use of technology, such natural disasters can be managed effectively. The media must not consider floods, droughts, fires, or other environmental disasters merely as natural disasters but should link such impacts with environmental changes, industrial pollution, deforestation, human intervention with nature, and so on. Fairclough (1995), in his study, states that media should cover and highlight the areas that , on the other hand, are ignored and not given consideration by the masses. Therefore, the media is expected to sensitize the masses regarding such disasters and create a way forward to combat or tackle such environmental change disasters and their impacts on people and society as a whole. On the other hand, equally important is environmental equity or justice in society. It has been widely observed and noted that in floods, droughts, disasters, and environmental changes, the major impacts are faced by the underprivileged in society. It is the role and responsibility of the media to highlight and become a voice for such voiceless people, representing them and creating a sense of ownership among the poor and marginalized sections of society. The media is also required to highlight and create awareness among people about science and technology related to the environment and provide them with knowledge that through the use of such technology, they can tackle the horrors of disasters. The study of ecolinguistics reminds the media that humans are, in no way, different from society and can never be detached from society and vice versa. Hence, media reports are also expected to discuss humans, rivers, oceans, flora, fauna, biodiversity, and the ecosystem as a whole to give them significance and bring them into the limelight of the coverage. Media reporting is also required to use environment related terminology and diction, such as environmental war, ecological emergency, and other relevant terms, in its reports to highlight environment related information. Recent studies highlight that similes and metaphors have a significant impact on human thinking. Hence, the media is encouraged to resort to this method to mould public opinion towards environmental conservation and protection. Moreover, media personnel are required to engage in investigative journalism and cover incidents and events from different angles , examining their pros and cons deeply. If there are frequent flash floods in any area, the media is expected to discuss the causes and the role of concerned authorities in handling the incidents . Media houses, along with environmental protection organizations and other stakeholders, are required to impart knowledge and training to journalists. There is also a significant role for environmental funding organizations in sensitizing media personnel. In training sessions, they are expected to invite environmental experts, scientists, and scholars who have made significant contributions in this area. Media reports and the diction used therein have great significance. They must highlight a green and stable future through sustainable development initiatives and become partners in facing the challenges and effects of environmental degradation. They must give hope to people that the media stands with them and will continue contributing its responsible and positive role. This is the major objective of ecolinguistics. Societies such as ours widely need the use of ecolinguistics in the media.

​Where the nine-hundred-year legacy of the University of Cambridge has long claimed to stand guard over truth, intellect, and reason, a profoundly agonizing incident has laid bare the deep intellectual, political, and social fault lines of the modern West. Professor Jason Arday—who made history as the youngest Black academic appointed to a professorship at Cambridge—was found dead at his home in South West London on August 14, 2026. To dismiss his sudden passing as a mere bodily collapse or a quiet, solitary cardiac arrest would be a profound act of self-deception. This tragedy is, in truth, the direct consequence of a systemic crisis eroding Western academia—a space where the fragile boundary separating legitimate academic rigor from ruthless political and racial factionalism has dissolved, and where institutional accountability has steadily devolved into a spectacle of public humiliation. ​Jason Arday’s ascent was a rare testament to human endurance and unyielding resolve. Raised in a low-income neighborhood in South London, he was diagnosed in early childhood with a severe form of autism. He remained non-verbal until the age of eleven and was unable to read or write until he was eighteen. Yet, defying both societal expectations and medical prognoses, he mastered the written and spoken word, pursued higher education, and navigated his way through the faculties of Roehampton, Durham, and Liverpool, ultimately securing a chair in sociology at Cambridge in March 2023. ​However, Arday’s arrival at the pinnacle of British academia coincided with an intense ideological war engulfing universities and the press. Over the preceding decade, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives had been elevated to core institutional imperatives across British higher education. Universities leaned into these metrics to rebrand themselves, and scholars of Arday’s caliber frequently became the public face of this transformation. ​This is precisely where the deeper ideological friction of contemporary British society erupted into what is widely characterized as a culture war. On one side stood a progressive consensus viewing DEI policies as a overdue corrective to historical inequities; on the other stood a relentless right-wing press and traditionalist academic factions that framed such appointments as a dilution of meritocracy and an embrace of ideological tokenism. ​When questions were subsequently raised regarding technical details within Arday’s PhD thesis and past curriculum vitae, the matter did not remain confined to quiet internal review. Right-leaning media outlets swiftly weaponized these allegations to mount a broader assault on Cambridge’s DEI framework. The tragedy of this partisan crossfire was that Arday’s humanity was entirely erased; he was reduced from a living, breathing scholar into a battlefield for competing political narratives. ​Academic integrity is undeniably the bedrock of any serious higher education system. When allegations of plagiarism are leveled against a scholar, a university is legally and ethically bound to conduct a thorough, impartial, and confidential inquiry. Yet, when such proceedings leak beyond institutional walls into the arena of tabloid journalism and political point-scoring, the genuine purpose of oversight is lost. ​Liverpool John Moores University had previously conducted a comprehensive investigation into the allegations against Arday, fully exonerating him and reaffirming the validity of his doctorate. However, the toxicity of commercialized media and political polarization ran too deep for that clearance to settle the matter. When Cambridge University, bowing to intense media pressure, announced a secondary independent review, it revealed just how vulnerable modern elite institutions have become to the demands of public relations. ​The most damning dimension of this ordeal was the existential and psychological toll exacted upon a scholar watching a lifetime of discipline destabilized in an instant. In his resignation statement on August 5, Arday explicitly clarified that stepping down was not an admission of guilt, but the final recourse of a human being pushed beyond the limits of endurance by a relentless media trial. Just nine days later, on August 14, 2026, he was dead. Neuroscience and clinical psychology have long documented how sustained public humiliation, character assassination, and the erasure of one’s professional identity can inflict severe somatic stress, culminating in fatal systemic collapse. ​This event casts a severe shadow over liberal democracies that pride themselves on individual dignity and the presumption of innocence. In a hyper-digitized media ecosystem, accusations function as instant convictions in the court of public opinion, long before an individual has a meaningful opportunity to offer a defense. Academia, which ought to serve as a sanctuary for measured deliberation, has proven just as susceptible to sensationalism as the rest of society. Arday’s death leaves scholars worldwide asking whether the academic vocation has shifted from the quiet pursuit of truth to a harrowing exercise in surviving public vilification. ​Jason Arday’s death compels an overdue reckoning: institutional accountability must be structured so that it neither shields genuine intellectual dishonesty nor surrenders an individual scholar to the crossfire of racial and culture wars. If elite universities fail to insulate their investigative processes from media trials and political agendas, the most sensitive and brilliant minds will inevitably retreat from the academic life altogether. Arday’s silence now stands as a profound question mark hanging over the international scholarly community. ​The ultimate lesson of this tragedy is that the dignity of those who dedicate their lives to learning cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political or journalistic expediency. If the institutions entrusted with seeking truth cannot protect their own, society loses its moral compass. Standing before the red-brick facade of Cambridge, one is left asking how a scholar of such promise could crumble on its doorstep. This was not merely the loss of a single life; it was an institutional failure that demands the grief and critical reflection of the global intellectual community. ​The extraordinary resilience with which Arday conquered his early disabilities demonstrated the scale of his ambition and character. Yet, faced with the cold machinery of institutional cowardice and media hostility, that strength was ultimately overwhelmed. This moment offers a final, urgent opportunity for self-examination within higher education. If we remain silent, the fires of ideological intolerance will continue to consume the very minds meant to illuminate

Pakistan has never lacked economic advice. Since independence, successive governments have experimented with socialist planning, import substitution, nationalisation, structural adjustment, privatization, fiscal decentralisation, value added taxation, documentation drives, digital governance and, most recently, artificial intelligence in tax administration.  Almost every reform has been presented as the missing ingredient that would place the country on the path of sustained prosperity. However, Pakistan continues to oscillate between balance-of-payments crises, external dependence, fiscal instability and repeated recourse to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This persistent failure raises a more fundamental question. Is Pakistan’s crisis primarily economic, or are economists asking the wrong questions? For decades, the dominant explanation has remained remarkably consistent. Pakistan is said to suffer from a narrow tax base, inadequate domestic resource mobilisation, weak public institutions, poor governance and inconsistent implementation of otherwise sound policies. According to this view, if taxes were broadened, exemptions withdrawn, administration digitalised and markets allowed to function efficiently, sustainable growth would eventually follow. There is much truth in these observations. They identify many of the symptoms. But they do not fully explain why technically sound reforms repeatedly fail in Pakistan while producing very different outcomes elsewhere. The reason, as suggested in earlier writings, is that Pakistan cannot be understood through the conventional assumptions of public finance alone. Economic policy does not operate in a constitutional vacuum; it reflects the incentives created by the political and legal institutions within which governments function. Orthodox economics generally assumes a constitutional order within which governments seek, however imperfectly, to maximise public welfare. Fiscal policy, taxation and expenditure are analysed as instruments for correcting market failures, financing public goods and promoting economic growth. Political constraints are acknowledged but usually treated as external distortions rather than integral components of economic analysis. Pakistan presents a different reality. Here, constitutional arrangements, political incentives, strategic considerations and informal institutions have shaped fiscal outcomes as much as, and often more than, economic policy itself. Taxation has frequently reflected the distribution of political power rather than principles of efficiency or equity.  Public expenditure has often been determined by strategic imperatives rather than developmental priorities. External assistance has repeatedly substituted for difficult domestic reforms. Elite bargains have preserved privilege while transferring the burden of adjustment to documented businesses, salaried individuals and ordinary consumers. These outcomes cannot be adequately explained by models that assume an impartial state pursuing coherent economic objectives. The analytical framework itself, therefore, requires reconsideration. This series proceeds from a simple but powerful proposition: before analysing taxes, budgets or debt, one must first understand the constitutional rules that shape political incentives. This is the central insight of Constitutional Political Economy (CPE).  Unlike conventional public finance, CPE begins not with taxes or budgets but with the constitutional rules, institutional incentives and political structures that determine how economic decisions are actually made. It asks a prior question: Who designs the rules under which economic policy operates, whose interests do those rules serve, and how do they shape incentives for both governments and citizens? Once that question is asked, many of Pakistan’s recurring puzzles begin to appear less mysterious. Why do technically sound tax reforms repeatedly fail? Why do successive governments rely on indirect taxation while avoiding politically influential sectors? Why has documentation remained elusive despite extraordinary advances in digital technology? Why does every external crisis quickly become a fiscal crisis? Why has debt expanded despite repeated stabilisation programmes? The answers lie not merely in economics but in the constitutional and political environment within which economics operates. This series proposes a different approach. Rather than examining taxation, debt or fiscal federalism as isolated subjects, it will analyse them as interconnected manifestations of Pakistan’s constitutional political economy. Future parts will explore how colonial legacies, post-independence constitutional choices, geopolitical dependency, elite capture, federal arrangements, judicial interpretation and administrative incentives have combined to shape Pakistan’s economic trajectory. The purpose is not to reject orthodox economics. Public finance remains indispensable. Sound taxation, efficient expenditure and macroeconomic stability are essential for any modern state. However, these instruments cannot achieve their intended objectives when the institutional environment within which they operate generates incentives that systematically frustrate reform. Pakistan’s crisis is not simply a fiscal crisis. Nor is it merely a crisis of governance. It is, more fundamentally, a crisis of constitutional political economy. Unless that deeper reality is understood, technical reforms, however well designed, will continue to produce disappointing results because they address the symptoms rather than the constitutional incentives that generate them. In the next part, we shall examine why the assumptions of orthodox public finance differ fundamentally from those of constitutional political economy, and why that distinction matters profoundly for understanding Pakistan. [To be continued]  ____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Ikramul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), member Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellow of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), holds an LLD in tax laws. He was full-time journalist from 1979 to 1984 with Viewpoint and Dawn. He also served Civil Services of Pakistan from 1984 to 1996. 

No one illustrates the laws of Physics better than human beings themselves. Entropy is not confined to laboratories and equations; it is lived through lives, societies, and relationships, steadily nudging order toward disorder. Entropy, in simple words, is a scientific measure of disorder and randomness. It shows how things naturally progress from order to chaos. Besides randomness, it is the tendency of systems to move toward greater multiplicity of possible states.   According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system always tends to increase. A human being, when he evolves through childhood and moves toward adulthood, becomes more random and chaotic. He does not merely accumulate years; he gathers contradictions.   His lived experiences shape his idea of life, leaving behind a psychological residue. The feelings that he experienced for the very first time in the past become a source of discomfort as time passes. As a child, he thinks little and inquires more out of curiosity. In short, the knowledge he gained came through curiosity. But knowledge always comes at a cost. Things that fascinate us a lot turn into something that we dread a lot. As we acquire knowledge, we become aware of complexities that were always present but invisible to us.   As a child, our worldview seems simple: people are either good or bad; dreams are achievable; friends are eternal; relationships are loyal and life moves between white and black. As we grow older, the order is disrupted. A rise in consciousness awakens us to multiple contradictions, uncertainties, anxieties, grief and losses. We learn that truth is ambiguous and subjective; morality is situational; relationships are fragile; certainty is rare and life lives in the grey zone.     It is no mistake to say that human consciousness itself produces existential entropy and expands internal contradictions and multiplies possibilities. The more we know, the less certain we become. Every choice restricts us. Every decision prepares us for consequences. Every loss reshapes our understanding of love. Every truth complicates identity and brings more uncertainty. Every new experience creates new interpretations.   Here comes the importance of meaning in life. Having been surrounded by disorder and chaos, our minds look for a safe space: less entropic and more purposeful. In other words, entropy is not just a physics metaphor. It is reason that pushes humans to find an anchor in topsy-turvy life. It’s more like providing moorings to the ship that is left at the mercy of aggressive waves.   Now a question comes to mind: how do humans resist the uncertainties created by the expansion of consciousness? The answer is meaning, but its discovery could be different in philosophical terms. Existentialists, such as Jean Paul Sartre, believe that purpose is constructive and built upon the choices presented to us by expanding consciousness.   Albert Camus’ philosophy argues that we embrace life’s absurdity by revolting against it instead of surrendering to it. It means we have to continue living passionately and consciously while being aware of life’s realities.   Viktor Frankl, in his book Man’s Search for Meaning, presents a different perspective on meaning as a “response” to suffering. He called suffering an inevitable and inexplicable part of human life. Humans can endure almost any suffering if they discover a reason for it. In this situation, meaning acts like “negative entropy” as it does not eliminate suffering but arranges it into a narrative that can be endured.   Frankl also argued the concept of “logotherapy” in his book, believing that man’s primary drive is to find something meaningful instead of seeking happiness or pleasure. Still others think that if we voluntarily shoulder the responsibility, we can lay the foundation of habitable order amid chaos.   From my viewpoint, every meaning, whether small or big, is worth pursuing if it only fulfils you. The nature and timing of meaning could be different, but one thing is certain: in this world, entropy will persist. The purpose of meaning is not to defeat entropy but to resist it and make it bearable. Our lives have been the accumulation of experiences, interpretations, complexities, and uncertainties. Any moment shared with loved ones, every act of love, every truth pursued, every responsibility accepted and every desire followed becomes a source of stability against life’s expanding uncertainty. Meaning does not eliminate entropy. It is humanity’s rebellion against it.

By Ahmad Hassan “The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other… Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: ‘I feed on your energy.’” When Frank Herbert wrote those words in his novel Dune Messiah, he observed that elaborate euphemisms are often used by the state to conceal the raw mechanics of power. In Pakistan, August 5 is observed as Youm-e-Istehsal to condemn the 2019 revocation of Article 370 and its supplementary provision, Article 35A. This act of the Indian government removed Kashmir’s separate constitution, its flag and its control over its own affairs. Last week marked seven years since that day. What began as a dramatic constitutional rupture has now, by design, become quietly normalized. Jammu and Kashmir joined India in 1947 on defined terms. The Maharaja handed over defence, foreign affairs and communications. Everything else stayed with the state. The United Nations later called for a plebiscite. It never happened. Instead, over decades, the protections that were supposed to stand in its place were worn down piece by piece, until August 5, 2019, when the government removed what remained in a single stroke. The method deserves more attention than it usually gets. Article 370 was not directly changed. First, the government reached for Article 367, which was intended to aid in the interpretation of the Constitution, and used it to redefine one phrase: “Constituent Assembly” became “Legislative Assembly.” Kashmir had no sitting assembly at the time, and the state was under President’s Rule. So, the government’s own appointee, the Governor, signed off on the change. India’s Supreme Court had already ruled, in 1959 and again in 1969, that Kashmir’s constitutional status could only be changed after the approval of the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir. When that body no longer existed, no institution had the standing to give that consent on Kashmir’s behalf. New Delhi decided that its own Governor could stand in for the people he had not been elected by. That is not consent. It is a government consenting to itself. The Indian government argued that Kashmiris had lived for decades under an insurgency that killed tens of thousands and emptied the Valley of its Pandit community in 1990. It left the region isolated from the investment and policing coordination. That argument would carry more weight if the method had matched it. What followed the revocation was not the language of integration. It was a total communications blackout, landlines and mobile networks and the internet all cut at once. Independent estimates put the troop presence at 600,000 to 800,000, roughly one soldier for every ten Kashmiris. Even pro-India politicians, former chief ministers among them, were placed under detention. Perhaps a security argument can justify counter-insurgency operations. It cannot by itself justify dissolving a state’s constitutional status, its legislature and its statehood in one move. That too with no elected Kashmiri voice given the chance to object. Jawaharlal Nehru warned Parliament about exactly this shortcut in 1952, while Article 370 was still being drafted. No clause in a constitution, he said, could substitute for the will of the Kashmiri people. Real integration, in his words, comes from the mind and the heart, not from a clause imposed from outside. Actually, there is a longer, quieter project behind the legal manoeuvre. Article 35A once barred outsiders from buying land or settling permanently in Kashmir. Since its removal, more than 3.2 million domicile certificates have gone to outsiders, most of them non-Kashmiri Hindus. This alarming thing is that wherever a disputed territory’s demographics are reshaped before its people are asked what they want, the eventual vote, if one ever comes, no longer reflects the population whose future was originally in question. None of this required an invading army, or an open declaration of intent. It required a redefined word, a signature from an appointee, and a great deal of time. The convoluted legalisms that Herbert warned about have become policy in Kashmir: development, integration, correction. Each euphemism has quietly done the work that an honest admission of purpose could never have achieved. Seven years on, Kashmir’s assembly has voted decisively against the BJP that carried out the revocation, and passed its own resolution demanding the restoration of its special status. New Delhi can easily ignore them. Yet, that very power to ignore an elected legislature proves, beyond any doubt, that the “consent” obtained seven years ago was always a legal fiction