Opinion

We Were Forewarned, Then Why Are We Drowning, and What Lies Ahead In March, when the glaciers were shedding their winter whites too early and the northern valleys stood bare against a sky that should have held snow, I wrote that the coming monsoon would test us. The National Disaster Management Authority had foreseen rains twenty-two to twenty-six percent heavier than the floods that killed more than a thousand souls the year before. Our embankments were still broken. Our protocols were still asleep. It is late July now. The test has begun. Riverine area dwellers stand at the edge of swollen rivers, watching the water turn from brown to something near black, carrying the upstream soil. There is that familiar murmur of disbelief from government corridors—the same soft gasp that follows every flood, as if the water had not been whispering its arrival for months. But the water does not whisper to those who will not bend their ear. It speaks in the language of saturated earth, and we have heard it before. We have simply chosen, again and again, not to listen. We were forewarned by the agencies. We were forewarned by the science. And we were forewarned by the very land beneath our feet—the old, patient land that absorbed until it could absorb no more, and is now quietly drowning. Yet when the skies opened, we were caught unprepared. And the heavy heart of Bhadoon is still to come. What the Old Farmers Knew For generations, the farmers of the Indus Basin have spoken of Sawan and Bhadoon not as months, but as temperaments. Sawan, the early monsoon of July and mid-August, is the gentle guest who fills the earthen pot. Bhadoon, the late monsoon of August and September, is the guest who arrives heavy with sorrow, and finds the door already swollen shut. There is an old understanding in the villages of Punjab and Sindh: if Sawan has been generous—if the rains have fallen day after day without rest—then Bhadoon must be received with care. Not because Bhadoon brings more rain, but because the earth, by the time Bhadoon arrives, has already absorbed all it can hold. The soil is no longer soil. It is a clay pot filled to the lip, trembling at the brim. The next drop does not nourish. It overflows. Modern science calls this Antecedent Moisture Condition. During a gentle Sawan, the land breathes; the rivers rise slowly, politely. But when the early rains come without pause, the land stops breathing. Its lungs fill with water. What was once a sponge becomes something heavy, something waiting. In dry years, only a fraction of rainfall becomes dangerous runoff. But once the soil is saturated, eighty to ninety-five percent of every new drop becomes immediate floodwater. The sponge has no choice. It must release what it cannot hold. It weeps. Nature does not betray us. It simply does what it has always done. It is we who forget the earth, who build our homes upon its floodplains and then feign surprise when the water remembers its ancient path home. The Water Remembers This is not a new story. The water has told it before, and it has told it gently, and we have not listened. In 1955, the Ravi rose with a roar that split the embankments of Lahore’s periphery. The river had been primed for weeks—day after day of July and August rain had filled the soil until the ground could no longer hold the September deluge. The peak at Madhopur was the highest ever recorded. The city woke to find its edges softened, dissolved, gone. In 1992, the same priming filled Mangla and Tarbela to their brims by mid-August. When the early September rains came, Tarbela’s flood-peak reduction capacity collapsed from thirty percent to two percent. The rest surged into the lower plains, uninvited and sorrowful. The engineers knew what was coming. The farmers had only the sound of the river changing pitch—a sound every old farmer knows, a sound that means it is time to gather the children and climb. In 2022, Sindh became an inland sea. Nearly a meter of rain fell on ground that was already thirty percent wetter than it should have been. The water had nowhere to go but into homes, into fields, into the places where people had built their lives on the quiet assumption that the land would always absorb their troubles. The years that followed did not forgive us. In 2023, the Chenab and Jhelum catchments drank until they were full, and when Bhadoon came heavy in September, communities that had barely recovered from 2022 found themselves underwater again. In 2024, the same quiet sorrow played across Sindh and Balochistan—early rains primed the soil, late rains broke the banks, and the katcha communities woke to find their world softened and dissolved. These were not catastrophes on the scale of 2022, but gentle, persistent reminders that the mechanism does not rest, and that a loaded sponge does not care whether the year is famous or forgotten. Then came 2025. The NDMA’s own reports confirmed what the old farmers could have recited without a single instrument: the rain fell on ground that was already wet. The system had no buffer, no forgiveness, no room for error. One thousand and thirty-seven people died. More than two hundred and seventy-five of them were children. Nearly seven million were affected. Three million displaced. Two hundred and twenty-nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty-three homes damaged or destroyed. These are not estimates. These are the quiet names and numbers of a nation that has grown accustomed to forgetting. Now, in 2026, the NDMA warns of an even more intense monsoon. The early snowmelt has already fed the rivers before the clouds even gathered. The reservoirs are high. The soil is full. The sponge is loaded. And Bhadoon has not yet arrived. The Quiet After the Warning The tragedy of this year is not that we did not know. It is that

The fourth part of this series argued that reforms fail when their design ignores the constitutional rules, institutional incentives and political interests that determine implementation. Pakistan’s problem, however, goes deeper than the capture of individual tax measures. The state itself has gradually become accustomed to obtaining resources through rents rather than creating the conditions for sustained production. A rent is an economic benefit obtained through control over a privilege, resource, regulation or strategic position rather than through corresponding productive activity. Rent-seeking begins when individuals, institutions and organised groups devote their energies to obtaining such benefits from the state instead of producing goods, improving services, developing technology or competing in open markets. Pakistan’s political economy has long rewarded access more generously than enterprise. Access to state land, subsidised credit, protected markets, statutory exemptions, import licences, public contracts, regulatory concessions, tax amnesties, administered prices and preferential treatment has frequently generated returns exceeding those available from productive investment. The result is an economy in which political connections can matter more than innovation, and proximity to authority can be more valuable than efficiency. This system is sustained at two interconnected levels. Domestically, privileged groups compete for benefits distributed through state power. Externally, the state repeatedly seeks resources by converting Pakistan’s strategic location and security relevance into financial assistance, debt rollovers, deposits, concessional oil arrangements and diplomatic support. The interaction between these two levels is central to understanding Pakistan’s continued dependence. External financing is not inherently harmful. Developing countries require foreign capital, technology and access to markets. Borrowing can finance infrastructure and productive capacity that generate future income sufficient to service the debt. Strategic partnerships can provide security and economic opportunities. The problem arises when external inflows substitute for domestic transformation. Pakistan has repeatedly treated foreign exchange availability as proof of economic recovery. Reserves rise after an IMF disbursement, bilateral deposit, commercial loan or rollover. The immediate threat of default recedes. The exchange rate stabilises and the government declares that confidence has returned. The underlying productive structure, however, may remain unchanged. The IMF completed the third review of Pakistan’s Extended Fund Facility in May 2026, permitting immediate disbursements of approximately US$1.1 billion under the EFF and US$220 million under the Resilience and Sustainability Facility.  Total disbursements under the two arrangements consequently reached about US$4.8 billion. The Fund also reported progress in rebuilding reserves and achieving the agreed primary surplus. These developments provide necessary breathing space. They do not constitute economic independence. Recent events offer an unusually clear illustration. Pakistan reportedly requested a US$10 billion exchange-stabilisation facility from the United States after playing a diplomatic role in the Middle Eastern conflict. Economists quoted by Reuters questioned whether fresh financing would address the reforms Islamabad had repeatedly avoided. One analyst described the proposed support as “geopolitical rent”. Pakistan had earlier repaid US$3.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates and obtained a US$3 billion Saudi backstop to help fill the resulting gap.  The episode is not remarkable because Pakistan sought assistance during a difficult external shock. Responsible governments must protect reserves and manage emergencies. Its significance lies in the familiar institutional response: once again, strategic usefulness is expected to generate the liquidity required to postpone a deeper restructuring of the economy. However, fresh liquidity can purchase time. It cannot manufacture productivity. Pakistan’s external relationships have repeatedly followed this pattern. During the Cold War, the country received assistance because of its strategic position. The Afghan war transformed Pakistan into a frontline state and brought large flows of military and economic support. The post-2001 “war on terror” renewed the same bargain under different circumstances. Regional conflicts, security alliances and diplomatic mediation continue to create opportunities for financial support. Each inflow temporarily relaxes the pressure for reform. It also strengthens those institutions capable of negotiating and managing the strategic bargain. The constitutional consequence is profound. A state financed substantially through its citizens must negotiate with them. It requires a productive economy capable of generating taxable income and a political order capable of securing broad consent. A state able to obtain resources externally can delay that negotiation. This is one reason why taxation and representation cannot be separated. Dependence upon external rents weakens the fiscal relationship between citizen and state. Governments remain less accountable to taxpayers when foreign creditors, strategic partners and captive domestic sectors provide the resources necessary for survival.  The burden of adjustment is then transferred to those lacking political protection. Salaried persons face deduction before receiving their income. Documented businesses encounter withholding taxes, minimum taxes, advance taxes and delayed refunds.  Consumers pay indirect taxes and levies through electricity, fuel, telecommunications and ordinary purchases.  Powerful sectors negotiate exemptions, reduced rates, amnesties or deferred enforcement. External rents and domestic privileges are therefore not separate distortions. They reinforce each other. The article, “The age of implosion: exhaustion and the hollow core”, recently published in Business Recorder, offers a useful metaphor for this condition. It argues that financial movement can create the appearance of vitality while the productive foundations of the economy continue to weaken. Loans, deposits and other inflows may keep institutions operating outwardly even when their inner capacity is being exhausted.  The metaphor requires institutional precision. Pakistan has not ceased functioning. Taxes are collected, budgets are passed, debt is serviced, imports continue and administrative structures remain active. The state survives through a combination of borrowing, external support, remittances, taxation of captive sectors and periodic transfer of costs to future generations. This should not be mistaken for resilience. It is deferred adjustment.  The official Pakistan Economic Survey 2025–26 continues to organise the country’s performance through conventional categories of growth, investment, trade, fiscal development, public debt and social indicators. These measurements are necessary, but they do not fully capture the political mechanisms determining why available resources flow towards consumption, protection and rent extraction rather than productivity, human development and technological advancement.  A rent-based economy also shapes the behaviour of the private sector. Businesses rationally adapt to the incentives created by the state. Where profits depend upon tariff protection, regulatory discretion, government contracts,

By Engr. Saqlain Abid Pakistan’s diplomatic position appears to be entering one of its most delicate phases in recent years. What initially seemed to be a conflict limited to the United States and Iran is gradually expanding into a broader regional confrontation, forcing many states to reconsider their strategic choices. After six consecutive days of American bombing inside Iran and the continued military response by the Houthis against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan may find itself moving from the role of mediator toward that of a potential participant in a wider regional security framework. For months, Islamabad attempted to maintain balanced relations with all major actors. Pakistan consistently called for restraint, dialogue, and reconciliation while avoiding direct involvement in the conflict. However, regional defence commitments and strategic partnerships may eventually place Islamabad under increasing pressure. If Saudi Arabia invokes defence cooperation against Houthi attacks, Pakistan could face difficult decisions regarding its military and diplomatic responsibilities. Since the Houthis are widely regarded as being closely aligned with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), any Pakistani military involvement against them would inevitably carry implications for Pakistan-Iran relations. Such a development would represent more than another military confrontation. It would symbolise the further fragmentation of the Muslim world. If Pakistan, another major Muslim state, enters a conflict involving an Iranian proxy, one must ask whether any meaningful concept of Muslim strategic unity ever truly existed. The divisions that have surfaced during recent crises suggest that political interests, national security calculations, and regional rivalries continue to outweigh religious solidarity. Recent diplomatic developments have also raised important questions. Turkey’s growing regional activism and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visible engagement alongside President Donald Trump during last week’s summit have been interpreted by many observers as a signal that regional alliances are evolving. Simultaneously, Iran appears to be facing mounting economic constraints, prolonged sanctions, and increasing diplomatic isolation. The question naturally arises: what strategic options remain available to Tehran? Iran still possesses considerable leverage despite its economic difficulties. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, while the Houthis retain the capability to disrupt maritime traffic through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. Any prolonged disruption in either corridor would significantly affect global energy markets, increasing oil prices and creating severe economic pressure on Europe and the wider international community. These maritime realities provide Iran with strategic leverage even while under military and economic pressure. This changing environment also raises another possibility. Washington may be attempting to reshape its regional security architecture. The Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have invested enormous financial resources over the past decade in regional security arrangements. Yet repeated conflicts have exposed limitations in those frameworks. If confidence in the existing Gulf-centred order continues to weaken, the United States may increasingly look toward countries such as Turkey and Pakistan as more active regional security partners. Pakistan’s strategic importance cannot be ignored. It possesses one of the world’s largest armed forces, nuclear capability, extensive counterterrorism experience, and a unique ability to maintain dialogue with competing regional actors. Together with Turkey, Pakistan could potentially contribute to a new regional security framework. Recent praise directed toward both President Erdoğan and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, by President Trump has naturally generated speculation regarding future strategic cooperation, although such interpretations remain speculative and should be approached with caution. Nevertheless, Pakistan must carefully evaluate the costs of any deeper military commitment. A defence partnership should never be viewed as a one-sided obligation. If Pakistan were expected to support Saudi Arabia during a regional conflict, an equally important question deserves attention: would Saudi Arabia provide similar military support if Pakistan faced aggression elsewhere, particularly from India? The answer remains uncertain. Defence agreements are strongest when obligations, expectations, and strategic interests are genuinely reciprocal. Pakistan’s greatest contribution may not lie on the battlefield but at the negotiating table. Rather than becoming another participant in an expanding regional war, Islamabad should utilise its diplomatic credibility to encourage a new regional dialogue. Any future Muslim security architecture should emerge through regional consensus, not through external approval or great-power competition. Iran has demonstrated that it remains an influential regional actor whose interests cannot simply be ignored. Sustainable peace will require engagement with Tehran rather than permanent confrontation. Ultimately, Pakistan stands at a strategic crossroads. It can either become another member of an expanding war coalition or position itself as a credible architect of a new regional order built upon diplomacy, mutual security, and South Asian consensus. In an era where wars are becoming increasingly costly and alliances increasingly fragile, Pakistan’s greatest strength may be its ability to build bridges rather than battle lines.

Dr Pervez Butt died on the 26th of July, 2026, at the age of 84, and with him Pakistan lost one of the last living architects of its nuclear age. The obituaries will rightly recount the long arc of his public service: joining the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1963, cutting his teeth on the design of KANUPP-I, Pakistan’s first commercial nuclear power plant, spending years at GE Canada absorbing the discipline of reactor engineering, and eventually rising to chair the PAEC from 2001 to 2006 — a tenure during which he oversaw the expansion of Chashma and laid groundwork that would carry Pakistan’s nuclear power programme well into this century. He would go on to serve as Federal Secretary for Science and Technology, as an adviser at the Planning Commission, and, until his final days, as a quiet counsel to the National Command Authority. Nishan-i-Imtiaz, Hilal-i-Imtiaz, Sitara-i-Imtiaz — the honours are a matter of record.     But I did not know him first as a chairman or a decorated public servant. I knew him as a teacher who happened to hold the keys to some of the country’s most consequential engineering decisions, and who chose, for reasons I am still grateful for, to hand a few of those keys to me. I want to remember him the way I actually experienced him — not through the official biography, but through three long afternoons at his house in F-11 Sector, Islamabad, where he taught me something the textbooks never quite manage: how the price of nuclear electricity in Pakistan is actually determined. Anyone who has sat through a lecture on tariff determination knows how dry the subject can be made to sound — EPC cost, fuel cost, capacity purchase price, energy purchase price, indexation, decommissioning liability. Dr. Butt made none of it dry. He made it a ritual. Each session began the same way, and the way it began told you everything about the man. There was no walking straight into the numbers. First came tea — always a full spread of dry fruits, delicate sandwiches, fresh fruit, chana chaat, and cappuccino. It was in his drawing room that I had my first Cortado, and my first Mocha, both poured by a man who clearly took as much pride in introducing a good cup of coffee as he did in explaining a heat-rate calculation. Only once the plates were cleared did the real class begin. He held nothing back. The sessions ran from ten in the morning until nearly four in the afternoon — six hours at a stretch, with no formal lunch break at all. Instead, somewhere past midday, a trolley would appear, loaded with Lahori chanay and naan, and he would keep teaching straight through it, tariff formulas in one breath and the economics of fuel fabrication cost in the next, a piece of naan in hand the whole time. I have sat in university seminars with more structure and far less learned. What I remember most, though, is the break. Every two hours, without fail, he would stop — not because he was tired, but because he knew I smoked, and he had built an orchard directly across the road from his house for exactly this purpose. We would walk over together, and his waiter would already be there ahead of us, a fresh cappuccino on the table, an ashtray set out with wet tissue paper folded neatly beside it — a small, deliberate touch that told you this man planned for his guests down to the last detail. And it was in that orchard, not at his desk, that the real teaching happened. He would ask me, plainly, to repeat back what I had just understood. Not to test me — to correct me, gently, if I had drifted, and to make sure the idea had actually landed before we walked back inside for the next round. I was, I suspect, an unlikely student for him to invest that kind of care in. I have never been a person drawn to nuclear energy for its own sake — the physics of it, the fission and the neutrons and the reactor cores, left me largely unmoved. What pulled me toward him was the economics: how a country decides what a unit of nuclear electricity should cost, how the capital recovery on a plant like K-2 or C-3 gets built into a tariff, how fuel cost and EPC cost and decommissioning liability all get stitched together into a number that regulators can defend and the public can pay. That was the language I wanted to learn, and he taught it to me the way he taught everything — thoroughly, patiently, and without ever once looking at the clock. Looking back, I think that was the most VIP treatment anyone taught by him could have asked for — not a title, not a certificate, but three full days of a man who had chaired the PAEC choosing to spend his mornings, his working lunches, and his smoking breaks making sure a subject I hadn’t cared about a week earlier had become one I could speak on with confidence. Pakistan will remember Dr. Pervez Butt for KANUPP and Chashma, for the plants he helped design and the institutions he helped build — the Pakistan Welding Institute, the nondestructive testing facility at Taxila, decades spent quietly ensuring that a technically demanding and politically sensitive programme kept working. Those achievements belong to the history books, and they are considerable. I will remember the orchard. I will remember a Cortado poured by a man who insisted the tea come before the tariff, and a lecture that never stopped even for lunch. That was his real gift — not just what he knew, but how completely he was willing to give his time to make sure someone else knew it too. Rest well, sir. The lesson stayed.

Elections are currently being held in Pakistani-administered Kashmir (POK), and their results have already become controversial at the very first stage. Gilgit-Baltistan, which is essentially also part of Kashmir, held elections recently. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) won there, while the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party also received some seats, and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) won fewer seats. Despite this, the PML-N accepted the results and fully cooperated in the formation of the government. In the first phase of elections in Mirpur, however, the PML-N won nine seats, while Bilawal’s PPP secured four. Despite winning four seats, the PPP immediately began raising allegations of rigging. Even more painful is the fact that these elections have been marked by bloodshed. During clashes surrounding the long march of the banned Awami Action Party, one Rangers personnel was killed and five police officers were confirmed injured. The Awami Action Committee, meanwhile, claims that its protesters came under firing, resulting in the deaths of 14 of its workers. The number of people killed or injured from the Awami Action Committee has not been officially confirmed. However, if government personnel have been killed and injured, it is reasonable to assume that protesters also suffered casualties. The question now is what should be made of the rigging allegations being levelled by the PPP and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. If one side refuses to accept the election results and uses such harsh language against the other side, could the situation not deteriorate further? From a strategic perspective, it would have been better to hold the entire election on a single day. The total number of voters is not so large that the process needed to be stretched out in this manner. The second phase is scheduled for August 2, followed by the third phase on August 10, as if this were a battlefield. Bilawal should also think beyond repeatedly raising the issue of rigging. At present, his own party is in power in Kashmir. The deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners and other officials were appointed by the ruling party. So who has greater opportunities to influence elections—the ruling party or the opposition? Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz conducted an effective election campaign during the final days. However, the writer believes it was not befitting of a three-time elected Pakistani prime minister to say words to the effect of: “I will ask my brother Shehbaz Sharif to make me the prime minister of Kashmir, and I will solve all its problems.” Instead, he should have said that whichever member from their party is elected to the assembly, he and his party would fully cooperate with that representative in resolving the problems of the people of Kashmir. Maryam Nawaz also sent air-conditioned buses for the people of Kashmir, but they were stopped on the instructions of the Election Commission. Nevertheless, the message reached the people of Kashmir that the PML-N was in a position to do something to address their deprivation. This thinking could help the PML-N achieve further success in the next two phases as well. But the real decisions, after all, remain in the hands of those who possess the power and influence. In our country, writing and speaking the truth has become extremely difficult. There is immense pressure not only from powerful circles but also from violent and extremist mindsets. Their proxies can be found roaming freely in the streets. In normal states, something that would be considered ordinary or insignificant was used as a pretext to shut down the country’s largest media organisation, Geo, for two weeks. This alone gives an idea of the pressure facing the Jang newspaper and the national media. For this reason, the writer says he tries to avoid writing about national and domestic affairs and mostly focuses on international issues. Even there, however, he has to be careful not to write anything critical of China, Iran or certain other countries. Likewise, he says he cannot write anything supportive of India, Israel or certain other countries that might highlight a positive aspect or truth about them. This, he says, is the pressure he faces every moment. When it comes to Indian-administered Kashmir, we can freely write and speak about alleged government abuses without facing difficulty or objection. We can exaggerate as much as we want and add as much colour as we like. The violent militants there are portrayed as victims under all circumstances. But when it comes to our own Kashmir, we are expected to portray the movement for public rights as anti-state, Indian-sponsored and terrorist, regardless of how strongly its members insist that they are simply demanding rights for ordinary people. The organisation is not even named after any military or jihadist group. It is called the Jammu and Kashmir Joint Action Committee. It consists of local Kashmiri traders, transporters, workers, students and lawyers. These are ordinary citizens of the region. They demand rights for ordinary Kashmiris. They speak against rising inflation and call for reductions in the prices of wheat and flour. They oppose excessive privileges for the elite, misuse of public resources and corruption. They also demand an end to what they consider unjust taxes. Despite this, the organisation has not only been banned, but its workers have allegedly been arrested and subjected to violence in ways that are deeply disturbing. While witnessing all this, writers like us sometimes adopt deliberate ignorance and tell the members of the Awami Action Committee: “You make allegations against our sacred institutions. How could they possibly commit excesses against you?” We are told that these institutions are the reason this small part of Kashmir remains with us. We are also told that they have kept the Kashmir issue alive so that the entire region can eventually be recovered. Therefore, according to this argument, their praise and appreciation are justified. If, according to protesters, 30 or 35 people have so far been killed and around 300 injured during demonstrations, then we are also told to consider how many of our security personnel have

By Waqar Malik The foundation of independent, responsible, and impartial journalism is balance, honesty, and fairness. Criticism is an essential part of journalism; however, a true understanding of any country’s situation requires a comprehensive view of its historical, political, economic, regional, and security circumstances. A one-sided analysis may highlight certain realities, but it cannot represent the complete picture. The German newspaper DW has raised several concerns and critical observations regarding Pakistan’s political, economic, and security situation. No country should be considered beyond criticism, and accountability is an important element of democracy. However, criticism must also be accompanied by balance, context, and a comparative perspective. If the challenges of a country are discussed, its sacrifices, achievements, and ground realities should also be presented with equal fairness. Pakistan is often portrayed as a country facing political instability, economic difficulties, and security challenges. However, an important question remains: is there any country in today’s world that is completely free from such challenges? Inflation, unemployment, political disagreements, social issues, and governance challenges are not unique to Pakistan. They are global realities affecting nations across the world. Germany, one of the world’s leading economies, is facing economic pressures, including rising energy costs, challenges within its industrial sector, concerns regarding employment, and economic uncertainty. Similarly, countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and the United States continue to experience inflation, political divisions, public protests, and social challenges. Therefore, highlighting the problems of one country while ignoring similar difficulties faced by others cannot be considered a complete and balanced analysis. Every nation must be understood within the context of its own history, geography, political environment, and security needs. Freedom of Expression: Is Pakistan Being Judged by a Different Standard? Pakistan is frequently criticised regarding freedom of expression, democratic values, and human rights. Such discussions are necessary in every democratic society. However, an important question must also be asked: is Pakistan being judged by the same standards applied to other countries? In Pakistan, political leaders, opposition representatives, journalists, lawyers, and members of civil society openly express their views on governments, state institutions, and national affairs. Political debates, speeches, and different opinions are widely discussed through media platforms. On various occasions, statements from detained political figures have also been reported prominently in the media. This raises an important comparative question: do individuals in custody in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or Germany receive exactly the same level of media access and opportunity to express their political views? In many democratic countries, detention laws are strictly implemented, and access to media is regulated according to legal procedures. Therefore, discussions about Pakistan’s freedom of expression should also consider international comparisons and broader realities. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right, and Pakistan’s Constitution recognises this principle. However, every right comes with responsibilities. Pakistan has witnessed political protests that have continued for weeks and, in some cases, months. On certain occasions, major roads were blocked, public life was disrupted, and damage to public and private property was reported. Despite these challenges, governments have often chosen dialogue, patience, and political engagement instead of excessive use of force. In every democracy around the world, the right to protest exists within the framework of law. No democratic society allows violence, vandalism, threats, or the disruption of public order under the name of political expression. Pakistan should neither seek exceptional treatment nor be judged by different standards. The Role of Pakistan’s Armed Forces and National Defence Some analysts describe Pakistan’s political system as a hybrid system. However, another important perspective also deserves consideration. Pakistan’s armed forces have made significant sacrifices for national defence, security, and the fight against terrorism. Thousands of soldiers and officers have lost their lives while protecting the country’s sovereignty, stability, and security. Pakistan’s geographical position places it in a complex security environment. Located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, Pakistan faces unique regional and international challenges. There is also criticism that Pakistan’s armed forces are involved in business and commercial activities. However, this matter can also be viewed from another perspective. Pakistan’s defence requirements are extensive, and investments in various institutions and projects are aimed at supporting defence needs, welfare activities, and reducing unnecessary pressure on national resources. Many countries around the world allow their military institutions to participate in research, technology, industry, development projects, and humanitarian activities. The United States and other developed nations have similar examples where defence-related organisations contribute to national development and innovation. Therefore, such policies should be assessed on the basis of national interest, transparency, effectiveness, and contribution to society rather than through criticism alone. For more than four decades, Pakistan has paid a heavy price due to regional conflicts and global security challenges. The consequences of the war in Afghanistan, participation in the international fight against terrorism, hosting millions of refugees, and the loss of thousands of precious lives have deeply affected the country. Pakistan has made enormous sacrifices in combating terrorism and has achieved significant successes in restoring security and stability. Despite these challenges, Pakistan continues to contribute towards regional peace and international cooperation. The Kashmir dispute remains one of the longest unresolved conflicts in South Asia. Pakistan supports the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and continues to advocate a peaceful and diplomatic solution. Pakistan’s stated position has consistently been based on dialogue, diplomacy, and peaceful engagement. Sustainable peace in South Asia can only be achieved through mutual respect, understanding, and peaceful resolution of disputes. The Situation in Azad Kashmir and the Government’s Approach The situation in Azad Kashmir demonstrates the importance of dialogue and political engagement during times of tension. A responsible state must ensure law and order, protect the lives and property of citizens, and seek constitutional and democratic solutions to public concerns. The right to protest is a democratic right, but it cannot justify violence, firing, destruction of property, threats against state institutions, or taking the law into

For three decades, the prevailing narrative of the global economy was one of seamless integration. From the design studios of California to the high-tech assembly lines of Shenzhen, the world operated on the assumption that technology was a bridge, not a barrier. However, that era of “borderless innovation” is rapidly giving way to a more fragmented reality. As the United States and China engage in an intensifying rivalry over the foundational technologies of the 21st century artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and 5G a “Silicon Curtain” is descending, reshaping global supply chains and forcing a difficult reckoning for developing nations. The shift marks a transition from a world defined by economic efficiency to one governed by national security. In Washington, the consensus has hardened around the idea that “de-risking” from China is essential to protect intellectual property and maintain a military edge. In Beijing, the drive for “technological self-reliance” has become a central pillar of national survival. What began as a series of trade disputes in 2018 has evolved into a comprehensive decoupling that threatens to bifurcate the global digital ecosystem. The Semiconductor Siege and the AI Arms Race At the heart of this decoupling is the semiconductor the “oil” of the digital age. Advanced microchips are the brains behind everything from smartphones to hypersonic missiles. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce introduced sweeping export controls designed to prevent China from acquiring the high end chips necessary for training generative AI models. The “CHIPS and Science Act” further signaled Washington’s intent to reshore manufacturing, offering billions in subsidies to bring fabrication back to American soil. China has responded with its own set of defensive and offensive measures. Beijing has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into its domestic chip industry via the “Big Fund” and has imposed export restrictions on critical minerals like gallium and germanium materials essential for high-tech manufacturing. This tit-for-tat dynamic has profound implications for AI development. While the U.S. currently leads in algorithmic innovation and hardware design, China possesses a vast reservoir of data and a highly integrated industrial base. As the two powers diverge, the world faces the prospect of two distinct AI “stacks” each with its own standards, ethical frameworks, and hardware requirements. For global corporations, the cost of maintaining two separate supply chains is staggering, with some estimates suggesting a permanent 1 to 5 percent drag on global GDP. The 5G Dilemma: Infrastructure as an Ideology The rivalry is equally visible in the rollout of 5G telecommunications. As the backbone of the “Internet of Things,” 5G infrastructure is more than just a faster cellular network; it is the nervous system of modern cities. The U.S. campaign to exclude Chinese providers like Huawei and ZTE from Western networks, citing security vulnerabilities, has effectively split the world into two camps. Many European and “Five Eyes” nations have aligned with Washington, citing the risks of state-sponsored espionage. Conversely, many nations across Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East have continued to embrace Chinese infrastructure, which is often more affordable and comes with flexible financing. This infrastructure divide creates a “path dependency”: once a country adopts a specific 5G standard, the subsequent software, security protocols, and hardware upgrades are likely to follow the same technical lineage. The “Digital Non-Aligned Movement” Perhaps the most complex fallout of this decoupling is felt in the Global South. Developing nations, many of which are in the midst of their own digital transformations, now find themselves in an uncomfortable position. They are being pressured to choose between the two technological poles, a choice that carries significant economic and diplomatic risks. For a developing economy in Africa or Latin America, U.S. technology offers high security and integration with Western financial markets. However, Chinese technology often provides a lower barrier to entry and a focus on state-led development goals. The danger, according to many economists, is that this “tech-polarization” will lead to a lack of interoperability. If a startup in Nairobi develops an app on a Chinese cloud platform, will it function seamlessly for a user in a market dominated by American standards? Furthermore, the “friend-shoring” of supply chains where production is moved to politically allied nations is creating new winners and losers. Countries like Vietnam, India, and Mexico have seen an influx of investment as manufacturers seek to diversify away from China. However, other developing nations that lack the infrastructure or political alignment to join these new “trusted” supply chains risk being further marginalized. A World of Redundancy and Risk Critics of decoupling argue that the process is not only expensive but potentially futile. The global tech industry is so deeply intertwined that total separation may be impossible without catastrophic economic damage. Apple, for instance, still relies heavily on Chinese assembly, while Chinese tech firms still utilize American software architectures. Moreover, the environmental cost of decoupling is often overlooked. As both superpowers race to build redundant factories and secure mineral supplies, the efficiency gains of globalized production are lost, leading to increased carbon footprints and resource competition. The “Green Transition” itself is at risk, as solar panels and electric vehicle batteries are caught in the crosshairs of trade restrictions. The US-China tech rivalry is no longer a peripheral trade dispute; it is the defining feature of modern geopolitics. The shift from a globalized market to a fractured one represents a fundamental change in how the world innovates and communicates. While “strategic autonomy” may offer a sense of security for the superpowers, it introduces a new layer of volatility for the rest of the world. As we move forward, the challenge for the international community will be to establish a “digital floor” a set of minimum standards and protocols that allow the world to remain connected even as political systems diverge. Without such a framework, the “Fractured Circuit” may not only slow the pace of global innovation but also deepen the divide between the connected and the disconnected, leaving the most vulnerable nations to navigate a world of incompatible systems and dwindling choices.

The word “terrorism” was not used for the same purposes in the 1970s for what it is used today. Back in those days the word terrorism was often related to insurgencies that were driven by concrete grievances rather than being a form of immoral intentions. The main entertainer driving the word “terrorism” to a whole new evil definition was none other than Benjamin Netanyahu- a man born in Isreal and raised in the United States of America, son of a Hebrew teacher.   This was the beginning of the international propaganda that would take place for decades to come and permanently shift the image of millions of muslims worldwide- a stamp of “terrorists” being posted on them. Benjamin Netanyahu was well aware of how the rising media worked, going on numerous podcasts, interviews and convincing people watching him from all continents on how the Palestinians deserved no state. He was the bridge between Zionists in Israel and English speaking jews in America for he was raised as an English speaker and knew how to convince otherwise. His biggest breakout was his brother Johnathan being the only one killed in war, and allowing him to use his blood and name to open non profits and involve himself in politics.    If you have been chronically online for the past few years you must have come across statements like “self defense against Hamas”, and may have wondered what on earth did Hamas do that resulted in the death of millions of children and women alike? For starters,Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and militant organization that has governed the Gaza Strip. However, it has grown into something much deeper.    A video surfaced of Benjamin Netanyahu having a conversation and indicating how keeping Hamas in power allows them to “justify” their attacks on Palestine, as far as admitting how crucial it is to have a body to blame and continue with his war crimes. “Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal” said Zohran Mamdani the mayor of New York in his recent instagram post. This much the whole world agrees on. The horrors committed in Palestine are often compared to the Nazi regime and even the war crimes of Genghis Khan.    However, recently his attacks on Lebanon have made him unpopular among his allies sitting in the white house as well as most of the European nations who already were past enduring him. Apart from the global allies, his seat at his own parliament is losing its grip as more and more corruption cases involving him are piling up. It is expected that he will end up in jail or exile. Can he use his motives with Hamas and create more blinding propaganda to rest his case- that much we do not know. What we do know is that both the right wings and left wings are tolerating the same old Hamas self defense story.   It feels really ironic how according to Netanyahu all the Hamas headquarters are hidden under schools and hospitals which makes it crucial to bomb them, not as much ironic how they pass on flyers indicating citizens in Palestine to leave their homes hence they survive the upcoming bombings. No matter how hard the narrative is pushed that it is a war, and no matter how much the defination of “genocide” is discussed, it is evident that this is a brutality being committed in the twenty first century where every narrative can be clearly seen and every horrific crime witnessed.   In every Palestinian and Lebanese house is sitting an Anne Frank whose story will never come out since everything is burned and any aid coming is met with closed borders and brutal IDF opposition. No matter how much funding they spend on anti palestinian propaganda or call the saving of children in gaza as being “anti semitic”- it is known that this is no “war”.