Gen Z, Jantar Mantar & PM Modi

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey signed the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement (MJDA) to strengthen their defense cooperation. The agreement was signed at a critical juncture in history, both globally and regionally. On the global front, the old order is in disarray, and conflicts are breaking out one after another. The West’s dominance and hegemony are fading. Economic power, which the West once used to rule the world, is in decline. Western control over weapons of destruction has weakened. Simultaneously, Western diplomatic influence has softened, and their grip on the UN and decision-making has weakened.    This has destabilized global peace, and in 2025 alone, 50 countries were engaged in conflicts or wars. As a result, new powerhouses, in economic, diplomatic, and defense production, have emerged. On a regional level, the Middle East and South Asia have emerged as flashpoints, where conflict or war can break out at any time due to the reckless behavior of Israel and India in their respective regions.    In this context, the signing of the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement has raised many questions, and people are exploring possible answers. First, what does the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement include? According to available information at this time, the three Muslim countries have joined hands to strengthen their defense cooperation. It sends a strong message to opponents and enemies that any attack on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Turkey will be treated as an attack on all. The aggressor will have to face the wrath of three powers.    Second, why is it important? It is important for two reasons. First, three countries are in hostile regions and face numerous security challenges. Let’s start with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is in a region where Israel is committing the worst genocide in modern history. The genocide in Gaza has destabilized the whole region. Unconditional support from the USA and the West allows Israel to continue the genocide in Gaza with complete immunity. They are providing all types of weapons of mass destruction and financial support to Israel. Even the USA and some Western countries are threatening the International Court of Justice or other UN agencies for asking for accountability of Israel. The USA and Israel’s attack on Iran has further complicated the situation. Iranian attacks on regional countries in the context of US bases are threatening a wide-scale war in the region. Saudi Arabia is also facing direct attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, especially on oil installations, which pose serious threats to the whole region.     For Pakistan, it has two hostile neighbors, India and Afghanistan. In 2025, India attacked Pakistan based on self-assumed allegations. However, a strong, full-scale retaliation from Pakistan compelled India to come to its knees. Pakistan destroyed many Indian fighter jets and missile systems. India rushed to the USA to beg for a ceasefire. On the other border, Pakistan is facing terrorism originating from Afghanistan. Afghanistan, with the support of India and Israel, has launched a full-scale proxy and terrorism war. It is also harboring terrorist groups such as BLA, TTP, etc. India, acting as a proxy of Israel, is providing full support to terrorists and fueling terrorism in Pakistan.   In the case of Turkey, it is facing multiple threats, including direct threats from Israel, Greece, and some regional proxies. Over the past few months, Israel has begun to portray Turkey as a new threat to Israel. Greece has also been encouraged by Israel and other Western powers to create problems for Turkey. Some Western countries also have historical grievances with Turkey and are seeking opportunities to harm it.    Therefore, this agreement is extremely important for the three countries and for both regions, the Middle East and South Asia.    Third, how will regional countries react, and what impact will the MJDA have on the region? First, Israel will not like it at all. Why? Because it will view it as a hurdle to creating a Greater Israel. Therefore, Israel will do everything to sabotage the agreement. It can use this agreement to create a sectarian divide in the region by portraying Iran as the enemy. It can conspire to instigate sectarian violence in the region, especially in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey. The USA and Western countries can also join hands to facilitate Israel. President Trump’s recent statement on the potential role of Syria in tackling the issue of Hezbollah is a strong indication of this strategy. He is urging Israel to stop attacking Lebanon and let the Syrian government fight Hezbollah. Lastly, Israel can also exploit the civilizational context and emotions of the custodians of the Arab, Iranian, and Turkish civilizations. It can trigger feelings of self-greatness and urge each civilization to pursue past glory.     Simultaneously, some elements in Iran, especially those pro-Israel or influenced by Israel, can propagate the MJDA against Iranian interests. They can argue that it will undermine Iran’s status and create hurdles for Iran to become the region’s major power. Proponents of this view can argue that, in the presence of this alliance, it will be difficult for Iran to dominate the region. It would be an ideal situation for Israel and other elements to create a divide along sectarian lines and fan sectarian violence in the region and in respective countries. Therefore, all countries (Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia) need to be extremely vigilant and coordinate closely.     Fourth, what would be the reaction of the global community, especially from the USA and China? China and the USA are important because they are major powers at this point in time. First, I do not believe the USA will have an independent view or reaction. It is strongly suspected, rather sure, that Israel will dictate the American response. It is an open secret that Israel does not want peace and stability in the region. Thus, the USA will follow this policy.    It is also in the USA’s interest. How and why? The USA considers the Middle East and South Asia vital to

Pakistan was achieved on the fourteenth of August in the year nineteen hundred and forty-seven, after sacrifices of a magnitude that still stir the soul and a struggle whose tirelessness remains an enduring lesson. Millions crossed borders in those turbulent months, leaving behind ancestral homes, familial graves, and the familiar soil of generations, so that a new homeland might rise where Muslims could live according to their faith and their free will. We stand now upon the threshold of the eighth decade of that hard-won independence. I, a Pakistani by birth and by conviction, have myself lived nearly fifty-eight years within the borders of this free land. This country conferred upon me an identity that no foreign power could erase, furnished me with the means of an independent existence—schools in which to learn, roads upon which to travel, markets in which to earn my bread—bestowed a measure of respect in the eyes of the world, and, in some degree, granted me a name among my fellows. Yet the question returns, quietly and persistently, like a debt long deferred; what have I given in return? Have I ever paused long enough, in the press of daily concerns, to weigh that debt with honesty? The same inquiry must be put, with equal seriousness and without partiality, to the institutions that were meant to serve as the pillars of the state, and to the rulers and authorities who have held power through these eighty years. What account can they render of their stewardship? Parliament was intended as the voice of the people; the courts as the guardians of justice; the civil service as the steady hand of administration; the universities as the nurseries of thought and character. Have these bodies discharged their duties with fidelity, or have they at times become arenas of personal ambition, partisan calculation, and the slow corrosion of public trust? The rulers who succeeded one another, whether civilian or military, received the same inheritance of soil, of people, and of hope. What have they added to the national store of justice, of prosperity, of self-respect, and of unity? The record is mixed, and the gaps are painful to contemplate. Have we, as a people, ever undertaken a true reckoning of our collective performance—not the ritual of speeches on national days, but a sober examination of conscience? And if such an accounting was made, did it lead to any genuine reformation of our ways, or did we merely resume the old habits once the anniversary had passed? Where, in truth, does Pakistan stand as a state at this present hour? We possess a land rich in rivers and fertile plains, a people endowed with resilience and talent, a strategic position that nature itself seems to have marked for consequence. Yet we continue to wrestle with the burdens of poverty that still touch too many homes, with the lingering shadows of disorder in parts of the country, with the uneasy balance between institutions that ought to complement one another, and with the persistent temptation to place private gain above the common good. Have we preserved, or have we frittered away, the sacred trust that our ancestors placed in our hands when they bequeathed us this country? That trust was not lightly given. It demanded vigilance against tyranny, honesty in public dealing, a willingness to educate the young in both knowledge and character, and a readiness to place the welfare of the whole above the advantage of the few. Looking back across the decades, one is compelled to ask whether that demand has been met in full measure. I do not exempt myself from this examination. For nearly six decades I have drawn from the well of national life—the protection of law, the opportunity to work and to speak, the simple privilege of calling myself a citizen of a free land. Have my contributions matched the gifts received? Have I laboured, in whatever sphere was allotted me, to strengthen rather than weaken the fabric of the republic? Have I spoken truth when silence was easier, practised fairness when partiality promised profit, and taught the rising generation that freedom is not a birthright to be consumed but a responsibility to be renewed? Honesty requires that each of us answer such questions in the solitude of his own heart, without the convenient shield of collective excuses or the comfortable habit of blaming those who came before. Enough, then, of evasion. The hour has come for every citizen, high or low, including the writer of these lines, to conduct a personal audit. Let each examine what he has taken and what he has returned. Let the institutions examine their fidelity to the purposes for which they were created. Let those who hold authority examine whether their decisions have served the enduring interests of the state or the fleeting interests of the moment. Only through such unsparing self-examination, followed by the hard work of reform, can the trust of the founders be renewed and the promise of Pakistan still be fulfilled for those who will inherit what we leave behind.

In the space of a single year, Pakistan has moved from the periphery of Middle Eastern diplomacy to its center. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir have positioned the country as both a mediator between Washington and Tehran and, more recently, a formal treaty partner of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The result  the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, signed on August 7 in Islam’s holiest city  marks one of the most consequential shifts in South Asian foreign policy in decades. Yet it also raises hard questions about who is really steering Pakistan’s course, and at what long-term cost.   A war that reshaped the region   The backdrop is a war between the United States and Iran that erupted on February 28, drawing in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthi movement, and disrupting roughly a fifth of the world’s seaborne energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. Missile and drone exchanges reached Saudi cities, unsettling a region that had spent years trying to de-escalate after the 2015 nuclear deal’s collapse.   Pakistan, one of the few states with working channels to both Washington and Tehran, stepped into the gap. Sharif’s government hosted preliminary contacts that produced the so-called Islamabad Memorandum, under which Iran signalled it would not pursue nuclear weapons  a pledge it had already made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 2015 accord  in exchange for a mechanism allowing it to dilute stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian later thanked Islamabad for its “constructive engagement” in securing a ceasefire and agreed to send negotiators to further talks in the Pakistani capital. Analysts at the Washington-based Stimson Center have noted that Munir personally staked considerable political capital on the diplomacy, given how easily it could have collapsed.       The Makkah pact   That mediating role fed directly into last week’s agreement. Saudi Arabia, repeatedly struck during the war by Iranian missiles and by Tehran-aligned forces in Yemen and Iraq, had already signed a bilateral defence pact with Pakistan in September 2025  struck, notably, just over a week after an Israeli strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha rattled Gulf capitals’ confidence in American security guarantees. The Makkah agreement extends that arrangement into a trilateral pact with Turkey, declaring that an armed attack on any one of the three signatories will be treated as an attack on all.   Pakistani officials describe the pact as purely defensive. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said this week it was “not directed against any country” and remained open to other regional states. President Asif Ali Zardari called it a reflection of “shared resolve for peace and security,” while Sharif credited Munir’s “tireless efforts” in securing an arrangement he said had been years in the making. For Riyadh and Ankara, the pact offers a hedge against dependence on any single outside power at a moment when American commitments to the region look less certain than they once did. For Pakistan, it offers closer ties with two wealthy allies, a symbolic role as guardian of Islam’s holiest sites, and outsized influence for a country whose economy remains fragile.   Praise, and pointed scepticism   The agreement has been celebrated in much of Pakistan’s domestic media as evidence that the country’s leadership  civilian and military alike  is finally translating decades of geopolitical positioning into tangible strategic weight. Supporters point to a similar dynamic in May, when a brief but intense military confrontation with India ended within days, after which the government promoted Munir to the rare, largely ceremonial rank of Field Marshal, only the second officer in Pakistan’s history to hold it.   But that same promotion has drawn sharp criticism from analysts who see it as part of a broader consolidation of power by the military at the expense of elected institutions. Munir, appointed army chief in November 2022, has presided over a period in which  according to critics including jailed former prime minister Imran Khan’s supporters  courts, the media and Sharif’s own coalition have operated increasingly under military direction, a system some commentators have dubbed a “hybrid regime.” The Middle East Institute has described Munir’s elevation as “a thunderous declaration of the military’s unassailable supremacy,” while other analysts note that his growing role in foreign and economic policy  well beyond the traditional remit of an army chief  blurs the line between civilian governance and military command in a country with a long history of that line collapsing altogether.   What comes next   None of this diminishes the immediate diplomatic achievement: a ceasefire process that, however fragile, has held; a new pact that binds three influential Muslim-majority states more closely together; and a Pakistan that finds itself, for now, indispensable to great-power diplomacy in a region convulsed by war. Whether that translates into durable stability  for the Gulf, for the broader Middle East, or for Pakistan’s own democratic institutions  remains an open question. The coming months, as the Islamabad talks resume and the Makkah pact’s practical implications become clearer, will test whether this new era represents a genuine diplomatic breakthrough or a further tightening of military control dressed in the language of strategic necessity.

The recently published PRIME Plus report, An Assessment of the FY2026–27 Federal Budget Through the Lens of Economic Freedom, deserves appreciation for shifting the debate beyond conventional budget arithmetic. Rather than asking merely whether taxes have increased or decreased, it examines whether the budget enlarges or restricts the freedom of individuals and businesses to produce, invest, trade and innovate. That alone makes it a valuable contribution to Pakistan’s policy discourse. The report of Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (PRIME) correctly observes that Pakistan’s formal economy bears a disproportionate tax burden while much of the informal sector remains outside the effective tax net. It questions tax expenditures exceeding Rs 2.35 trillion, highlights the crowding out of private investment by government borrowing, welcomes tariff rationalisation and criticises regulatory uncertainty. These issues deserve much wider public attention. PRIME’s analysis also points towards a deeper weakness in Pakistan’s reform discourse: we discuss economic freedom without first securing constitutional governance. The distinction is fundamental. International indices commonly measure economic freedom through taxation, trade openness, government spending, financial markets and regulatory efficiency. These indicators matter. Lower barriers to enterprise can promote investment, innovation and competition. They answer only part of the question. Why do countries with similar tax rates produce very different economic outcomes? Why do investors accept higher taxation in some jurisdictions while avoiding countries with lighter tax burdens? Why do some economies flourish with relatively large governments while others stagnate despite repeated concessions? The answer lies primarily in institutions. James Buchanan argued that public finance cannot be analysed independently of the constitutional rules under which governments operate. Douglass North demonstrated that long-term development depends upon institutions that reduce uncertainty, enforce contracts and create predictable incentives. Centuries earlier, Ibn Khaldun linked prosperity with justice, moderation in taxation and restraint upon arbitrary power. Excessive intervention, unpredictable fiscal demands and rent-seeking, he observed, ultimately weaken both economic activity and state revenues. These intellectual traditions converge on one central proposition: economic freedom is not created simply by lowering tax rates. It emerges from constitutional governance. Pakistan’s experience illustrates this clearly. Successive governments have offered tax holidays, created special economic zones, reduced customs duties and announced investment facilitation mechanisms. Investment nevertheless remains subdued. Investors do not merely compare tax rates; they compare legal systems. They ask whether contracts will be enforced within a reasonable time, whether regulations will survive political transitions, whether tax liabilities can be altered retrospectively and whether executive discretion outweighs parliamentary certainty. These are questions of constitutional governance rather than fiscal engineering. The same principle applies to taxation. Pakistan’s problem is frequently described as one of high taxation. That diagnosis is incomplete. The deeper problem is unequal taxation. The salaried class in formal sector is fully documented, its tax is deducted before income reaches employees, and its compliance burden continues to rise. Large segments of commerce, services and agriculture operate under very different fiscal realities. The issue is not merely how much tax is collected, but whether equal citizens are governed by equal fiscal rules. A system built around withholding taxes, presumptive taxes, minimum taxes and sector-specific exemptions creates unequal citizenship before the law. It also encourages informality. Businesses do not remain undocumented only because rates are high. Formal participation imposes greater compliance costs while offering few institutional benefits. Documentation without trust becomes compulsion rather than reform. The PRIME report also notes that government borrowing crowds out private investment because banks prefer sovereign lending over commercial risk. This is not simply a banking failure. When governments repeatedly finance deficits through domestic borrowing, banks act rationally by purchasing government securities. Financial markets are responding to distorted fiscal incentives created by public policy. Interest payments and defence together consume nearly 94 percent of net federal revenue, leaving little fiscal space for education, healthcare, scientific research, digital infrastructure, justice administration and productive public investment. The challenge is not merely that government spends too much; it is that public priorities have become distorted. Expenditure that strengthens courts, education, digital infrastructure, research, public health and efficient regulation expands future economic freedom because it reduces uncertainty and lowers transaction costs. Spending absorbed by debt servicing and institutional inefficiency does not. Constitutional Political Economy therefore distinguishes between the size of government and the quality of government. Fiscal federalism is another neglected dimension. The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 reshaped the distribution of fiscal powers. Provincial sales taxes, fragmented administrations and overlapping jurisdictions now influence business decisions daily. Economic freedom cannot be assessed through the federal budget alone. The constitutional structure governing taxation matters as much as the annual Finance Act itself. Pakistan’s economic challenge is consequently larger than budget reform. Markets flourish where laws are predictable, taxation is neutral, contracts are enforceable, property rights are secure and governments remain subject to constitutional restraints. These conditions cannot be created through a single Finance Act. They require a durable commitment to constitutional governance. The value of the PRIME report lies in encouraging this broader conversation. The next step is to recognise that economic freedom rests upon a stronger constitutional foundation. Where constitutional governance is weak, economic reforms remain temporary. Where it is strong, markets can generate prosperity without constant discretionary intervention. Pakistan’s recurring fiscal crises are symptoms rather than the disease. The underlying ailment is institutional. Budgets can redistribute resources, but only constitutional governance can establish equality before law, predictable taxation, secure property rights and meaningful limits on arbitrary state power. Economic freedom, therefore, is neither the starting point of development nor a concession to be distributed through annual Finance Acts. It is the outcome of a constitutional order in which taxation rests on representation, public borrowing is subject to accountability, contracts and property are protected, and executive power remains bounded by law. In a rent-distributing state, freedom is rationed through exemptions, influence and discretion; in a constitutional state, it is secured for all through equal rules. Unless Pakistan reforms the institutions that determine who is taxed, how public money is spent, who bears the cost of debt and how state power is

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”.  

Kashmiris including men, women, youth and children who underwent the second longest lockdown, complete curfew, for a pretty long time, are observing it as the second darkest day in their history on August 05, 2026. On August 05, 2019, the Indian Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had quite unexpectedly, illegally and unilaterally scrapped the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution making it an integral part of the country. These measures had ended the occupied territory’s limited autonomy and sought to alter the internationally recognized disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir in blatant violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions and international law. The second darkest day in Kashmiris’ history is now better known and is observed every year on August 05 as Youm-e-Istehsal (Day of Exploitation). The observance of Youm-e-Istehsal not only serves as a reminder of the continued sufferings of the Kashmiri people but also reaffirms Pakistan’s unflinching solidarity with their just struggle for the realization of their right of self-determination. Pakistan’s civil and military leadership has all along been extending moral, diplomatic and political support to the Kashmiris in their just and indigenous freedom struggle. Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC), around the world as well as the Pakistan government and the people are observing yet another Youm-e-Istehsal on August 05, 2026 to mark the 7 years of quite regretful, deplorable Indian siege of its illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir valley and denying the Kashmiris their birth right of self-determination in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. Needless to mention here that Kashmir conflict continues to remain as perhaps the oldest lingering and unresolved international dispute dating back to 1947. It also continues to be recognized by the world body, the United Nations, as an issue requiring peaceful settlement in accordance with its Security Council resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people who were engaged in one of the longest unarmed struggles for freedom from the Indian shackles. Kashmiris in the occupied valley, on both sides of the Line of Control, in the world over are observing August 5, 2026 as the second darkest day of their history. The first one being observed every year on October 27 is to continue marking their protest and agitation against illegal and forcible occupation of their territory by India on this day in 1947 after its last Dogra ruler Maharaja Hari Singh, one of as many as 565 princely states, had an Instrument of Accession signed in Delhi, had opted to join India in accordance with the provisions of the Sub-Continent Partition Plan against the wishes and aspirations of the valley residents. Following this ugliest development, India had airlifted its security forces into the occupied territory. Since August 05, 2019, India has accelerated its efforts for consolidating its control over its Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) through a series of political, legal, and administrative measures. The Indian Government was also making attempts, which are a great source of concern for everybody, to engineer demographic changes in its occupied territory through the issuance of forged domicile certificates to non-Kashmiris, mainly Hindus, changing the land ownership laws, and electoral delimitation measures which were designed to arbitrarily alter the region’s demographic and political landscape. There were reports that in pursuance of Indian PM Narendra Modi’s devilish intentions of promoting Hindutva more than 350,000 fake and forged domicile certificates have been issued to non-Kashmiris (Hindus) enabling them to settle in the occupying territory since August 05, 2029. These measures, quite obviously, were a crude attempt to dilute the identity of the indigenous Kashmiri population, undermining their political representation, and creating irreversible changes to the disputed territory in flagrant violation of all international laws and the Fourth Geneva Convention. The years following August 5, 2019, have also witnessed a worsening and quite alarming human rights situation in IIOJK. Reports of arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, custodial torture, women’s rapes, restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and systematic curbs on media freedom continue to surface and emerge frequently. Observance of another Youm-e-Istehsal on August 05, 2026 as such is not only a painful and tragic commemoration of August 05, 2019 events but also a reminder of the ongoing challenges being faced by the Kashmiris but will also highlight the urgent and dire need for the international community to take cognizance of the situation in IIOJK and exert pressure on India to respect international law and human rights and firmly support the efforts aiming at achieving a just and peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Observance of the Youm-e-Istehsal by the government and the people of Pakistan is also a renewed commitment of Pakistan to continue extending political, diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmiris until they are enabled to exercise their inalienable right of self-determination in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. Kashmiris all over the world earnestly believe that their observance of the darkest days on August 5 and October 27 besides other protests and rallies in occupied territory and elsewhere will sooner or later awake the sleeping conscience of the international community and they will be getting their birth right of self-determination in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions and they will be free to either stay with India or join Pakistan. They are hopeful that this will happen but are unable to say surely as to when this is going to happen.