Guardians of Mind in the digital deluge

Reflecting upon the profound vastness of the cosmos and the acute, unyielding solitude of the human condition, the French philosopher and writer Albert Camus once observed that if even a single lamp were to be kindled within the dark, tempestuous ocean of history, the entire fabric of the universe would transform, tearing asunder the merciless veil of night. The annals of history stand as an unshakeable testament to the truth that whenever the fierce gales of material greed, political expediency, and moral decay have threatened to engulf human societies, certain dervish-souled, deeply conscientious, and granite-willed individuals have emerged from the crowd. Swimming resolutely against the powerful, destructive current of their era, these rare souls have stood guard over the invaluable civilizational trusts bequeathed by antiquity. The fertile, history-drenched soil of Gujrat—where the ancient, meandering waves of the Chenab and Jhelum rivers have whispered civilizational sagas for centuries—has long served as the intellectual cradle and practical domain of precisely such a man of extraordinary mettle. Brushing aside the rigidities of legal codes, the demanding, iron-willed disciplinary training of police service, and the glittering, lucrative allure of high-ranking international postings, he made the monumental choice to dedicate his entire terrestrial existence to books, the retrieval of forgotten history, and uncompromised moral dignity. This towering, unyielding personality is none other than Arif Ali Mir, Advocate, whose entire life has stood like an unshakable monolith against the self-serving, shifting winds of his time. Born on December 28, 1949—corresponding precisely to the 8th of Rabi’ al-Awwal, 1369 AH, on a Wednesday—within the historic, time-honored confines of “Mir Manzil” in Mohalla Khyber, nestled deep in the heart of Gujrat’s historic town of Jalalpur Jattan, Arif Ali Mir’s life is far more than a conventional biographical sketch. It is a profound, sweeping narrative capturing the complex post-colonial socio-political contradictions of the Indian subcontinent, an unwavering, almost sacred custodianship of noble familial heritage, and an extraordinary odyssey of letters where every single chapter serves as a luminous metaphor for absolute sincerity, purity of intellectual purpose, and complete self-sufficiency. His esteemed father, Ghazanfar Hussain Mir, was a legendary, fiercely principled, and seasoned lawyer of his generation. His uncommon nobility, profound legal acumen, and distinguished, intellectual circle of acquaintances infused the deepest foundational layers of Arif Ali Mir’s character with a forged-steel morality that would remain his greatest, most unassailable asset throughout his life. Standing gracefully beside him was his mother, Ruqaiya Begum, an affectionate, deeply dignified woman who silently imprinted the enduring values of selfless sacrifice, patience, and unbreakable resilience upon the rearing of her children. Within this vibrant, intellectually charged household comprising four sisters and three brothers, Arif Ali Mir occupies a unique middle vantage: two elder sisters precede him in age, while all other siblings are younger. Driven eventually by the professional demands and expanding horizons of his father’s legal practice, the family made the permanent transition from Jalalpur Jattan to the bustling city of Gujrat, establishing their permanent domestic and intellectual anchor at “Mir Street” on Bhimber Road—a historic domicile that would organically evolve into a cherished sanctuary for scholars, jurists, and discerning bibliophiles alike. A deep, discerning psychological and biographical study of Mr. Arif Ali Mir’s versatile and multifaceted personality reveals that his arrival on December 28, 1949, was far from a mere statistical coincidence. According to the timeless principles of astrological configuration and character alignment, his zodiac sign, Capricorn, functions as a clear mirror to his intrinsic nature. Ruled by Saturn—the planetary archetype of profound gravity, timeless perseverance, and unyielding adherence to principle—these exact traits form the unmistakable, defining hallmark of Mr. Arif’s entire life. While Capricorns are universally recognized across traditions as grounded earth signs marked by relentless, grinding toil, Arif Sahib uniquely channeled this raw elemental energy into cultivating a veritable forest of arts, letters, and historical preservation upon the plains of Gujrat. The crowning virtue of his astrological archetype is structural discipline combined with penetrating foresight—qualities that naturally laid the bedrock of his early success in the legal arena, where he learned to dissect truth from falsehood with microscopic precision. Yet, the most captivating, transcendent facet of his persona is how he decisively transcended the traditional, narrow materialism often associated with his sign through a profound inner spiritual inclination. Operating as a fiercely devoted bibliophile and patron of learning, he redirected the formidable organizational capacity of the Capricorn psyche away from worldly accumulation and entirely toward the preservation of rare texts and the wide propagation of knowledge. Operating with the quiet, unostentatious efficiency characteristic of his sign, his personal dignity, fierce institutional loyalty, and immense intellectual depth render him a towering, sheltering tree on Gujrat’s literary horizon—its roots gripping ancient tradition, its uppermost branches illuminated by the clear light of universal wisdom. Mr. Arif Ali Mir’s educational journey is a rugged, continuous path strewn with dramatic twists, historical upheavals, and personal sacrifices that ultimately refined his character like crucible-tested gold. At the time of his earliest schooling, his father was stationed as the Chief Sanitary Inspector for the Sialkot Municipality, prompting Arif’s first three formative, sensory years of childhood to unfold within the disciplined, historic halls of the Convent of Jesus and Mary in Sialkot. Upon the family’s return to Jalalpur Jattan, he successfully completed his fifth and sixth grades at Islamia Primary School, subsequently transitioning to Islamia High School. When domestic circumstances necessitated a move to Gujrat, where the family initially settled in a rented house near Mohalla Gyanpura / Muslim Abad , he pursued his seventh and eighth grades at Muslim High School on Court Road. This institution was then under the stellar administrative helm of the eminent headmaster Master Ghulam Abbas. For his matriculation, he moved to Public High School No. 1 in Gujrat—administered with strict discipline by Headmaster Mirza Shaukat Ali and school owner Sheikh Shafqatullah—where he successfully passed his Matriculation examination in the watershed year of 1964. Following this, he completed his intermediate education at Sir Syed College on Railway Road, Gujrat, in 1966, before

By Malik Khuda Bakhsh Awan, retired Inspector General of Punjab Police and former IG of Azad Jammu & Kashmir & Engineer Arshad H. Abbasi, water and energy expert who has served in KPK and AJK, We write this not as critics sitting comfortably at a distance, but as two servants of this soil who have spent our working lives in the very regions now aflame with unrest — one of us measuring the water and energy that could have irrigated peace in KPK and AJK, the other commanding police lines in Punjab and standing watch over the mountains of Azad Kashmir. What we have seen convinces us of one thing above all: the fire in Balochistan, AJK and the erstwhile KPK is serious, but it is not yet beyond our control. It can still be reversed — if the Government of Pakistan acts with the courage to match the sacrifice already being offered on our behalf. Before we offer a single suggestion, we must first bow our heads. Every day, a young Jawan somewhere in Balochistan or the tribal belt tightens his boots before dawn, not knowing if he will return. Every week, a Frontier Corps patrol walks into an ambush it did not seek, and an FC officer’s name is added to a list none of us wants to grow longer. Every month, policemen in Quetta, Muzaffarabad and Peshawar guard checkposts that other citizens simply drive past without a thought. From the newest recruit to the most senior general, our security forces have offered blood, limb and years away from their families to hold this country together. Their courage is not in question. Their commitment is not in doubt. What we owe them now is not more praise — it is a strategy worthy of their sacrifice. That is the entire purpose of this letter. We do not want the martyrdom of our Army, Police and FC personnel to be spent on a war that could have been shortened, or avoided, by decisions made in Islamabad rather than only on the battlefield. History offers us hard evidence that this is possible, even in conflicts far older and far bloodier than ours. Lessons the world has already paid for, so we don’t have to. Colombia fought a Marxist insurgency for fifty years, financed by drugs and kidnapping — arguably a longer and more entrenched war than anything Pakistan faces today. Peace came in 2016 not because the state finally won every battle, but because it paired security operations with land redistribution for poor farmers and a transitional justice system that let fighters confess their crimes in exchange for reduced sentences, rebuilding public trust along the way. In Northern Ireland, three decades of sectarian killing between republicans and unionists ended largely because international partners poured investment into the poorest, most neglected border towns — the very places where despair had made paramilitary recruitment easy — while a new power-sharing government guaranteed both communities an equal, transparent voice. Sierra Leone’s civil war was fuelled by “blood diamonds.” It was tamed not merely by defeating the rebels but by legalising and regulating small-scale mining so that ordinary mining communities, not warlords, earned the benefit, backed by an internationally certified transparent supply chain and a strengthened anti-corruption commission. And in our own neighbourhood, the Philippines faced a decades-long Muslim separatist insurgency in Mindanao. It was calmed considerably by granting the Bangsamoro region genuine fiscal autonomy — its own revenue powers and a guaranteed development grant — replacing a corrupt, clan-captured funding system with one that visibly reached ordinary people. The pattern across every one of these conflicts, each objectively worse than what we face today, is the same. Peace did not arrive purely from military victory. It arrived when governments paired continued security pressure with transparent governance and genuine economic opportunity, so that the incentive to pick up a gun simply fell away. Our humble suggestions to the Government- First, unemployment among our youth is, in our respectful assessment, the single biggest driver of unrest in Balochistan, AJK and the tribal districts. A young man with a trade, a wage and a future does not need the BLA or the TTP to promise him meaning; he already has it. We therefore urge the government to treat job creation in these regions not as a welfare afterthought but as a core national-security investment, on par with any military allocation. Second, we ask for financial transparency in how resources from these very regions — gas, minerals, hydropower, forests — are spent. When local people can see, in plain terms, where the revenue from their own land goes, resentment gives way to ownership. Third, we ask for genuine, verifiable inclusion — local land and mining rights regularised in favour of communities rather than absentee interests, block grants that reach tehsil and union council level without being intercepted along the way, and reconstruction that is co-designed with elders and local government rather than imposed from a distant secretariat. Fourth, we ask for a dignified, well-resourced path for demobilisation and reintegration wherever it is possible — vocational training, stipends and honest employment for those willing to lay down arms, so that today’s militant does not become tomorrow’s freelance criminal. Fifth, and we say this with the greatest respect, every federal minister must spend a minimum of fifteen days, physically present, in Balochistan, AJK and KPK each year — not for a photo opportunity at a heavily guarded circuit house, but sitting with local elders, visiting FC and police posts, and looking our Jawans in the eye. A soldier who sees his federal government only through television screens begins to wonder if Islamabad remembers he exists. When a minister walks the same ground our forces are dying to defend, it tells every Jawan, every FC sepoy, every constable that his sacrifice is seen, valued and shared by those who lead him. This single change of habit would do more for morale on the front line than any speech delivered

By Eng Saqlain Abid Last weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that the United States and Israel were fully prepared to strike Iran’s critical power infrastructure, warning that military pressure would continue until Tehran surrendered completely. Around the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly conveyed messages through Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, emphasizing that any major attack on Iran would be met with a determined response against GCC partners and strategic regional assets if no diplomatic option remained. Yet within hours, the rhetoric shifted dramatically. Trump announced that although American and Israeli forces were fully prepared, he had decided to postpone military action following appeals from Gulf states and international mediators, citing “humanity” and the possibility of reaching an agreement. Reports suggested that negotiations revolved around two major conditions: keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to global shipping and ensuring that Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons. At first glance, the story appears simple—a crisis narrowly avoided through diplomacy. In reality, however, it represents a sophisticated narrative war in which every actor seeks to project strength while avoiding the devastating costs of a prolonged regional conflict. For Washington, the challenge is not merely military capability but strategic credibility. The United States undoubtedly possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority over Iran. However, superiority does not automatically translate into political success. Internal assessments by CENTCOM and the Pentagon have reportedly warned that any large-scale conflict could extend well beyond expectations, potentially lasting until 2027. Such a scenario would coincide with America’s domestic political calendar, including congressional elections, while risking declining public support for another costly Middle Eastern war. The lessons of Afghanistan continue to shape American strategic thinking. Airpower alone may inflict significant damage, but permanently degrading Iran’s military capabilities without ground operations remains an uncertain objective. Any decision requiring “boots on the ground” would carry enormous political and economic consequences. Consequently, Washington’s repeated threats increasingly resemble a strategy of coercive diplomacy rather than an immediate roadmap to invasion. A superpower is expected to demonstrate resolve, but maintaining global leadership also requires restraint when the costs outweigh the benefits. Iran, on the other hand, continues to rely on its long-established doctrine of strategic resistance. Despite mounting military pressure and repeated warnings, Tehran has sought to demonstrate that it retains the ability to impose costs across multiple theatres. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most strategically significant maritime chokepoints, and any disruption immediately reverberates through global energy markets. Meanwhile, continued instability around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, largely influenced by Iran-aligned Houthi forces, further complicates regional trade and shipping.   These maritime flashpoints have created understandable concerns among Gulf states. Countries investing billions of dollars in economic diversification projects—including Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and NEOM—depend heavily upon uninterrupted trade routes and stable energy markets. For Gulf capitals, preventing a regional escalation has become not merely a security priority but an economic necessity. Israel’s strategic calculations are equally complex. Since the beginning of the confrontation, Israeli policymakers have consistently sought firm American backing while remaining conscious of the domestic burden imposed by prolonged conflict. Extended military campaigns strain national resources, disrupt civilian life, and test public resilience. Consequently, Israel also has incentives to support diplomatic arrangements if they preserve security objectives without expanding into an open-ended regional war. Ultimately, today’s confrontation extends beyond missiles and military deployments. It is a contest of narratives, deterrence, and political signalling. Every side seeks to appear uncompromising while simultaneously avoiding a conflict whose consequences none can fully control. The prospect of a prolonged regional war is becoming increasingly difficult for any major stakeholder to sustain. Iran continues to deepen its strategic relationships with China and Russia, while the United States prefers negotiated constraints over another indefinite military campaign. Pakistan and Turkey have emerged as important channels of communication, but expecting either country to shoulder the diplomatic burden of resolving one of the world’s most dangerous geopolitical crises would be unrealistic. History repeatedly demonstrates that wars are easier to begin than to conclude. In the current Middle Eastern crisis, the loudest battlefield may not be defined by bombs or missiles but by competing narratives, diplomatic manoeuvres, and carefully calculated restraint. Whether this fragile pause evolves into a lasting settlement or merely delays another round of confrontation will determine not only the future of Iran but also the stability of the wider region and the global order.

The recent press conference by ISPR Director General Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry was presented as a significant and comprehensive briefing outlining Pakistan’s strategic direction, national priorities, and approach to security, governance, economic stability, terrorism, and external interference. Lasting more than two hours in Rawalpindi, the briefing went beyond a routine security update by addressing sensitive national issues in detail and providing operational information supported by data, charts, and presentations. It emphasized transparency, offered the military’s perspective on the country’s security environment, and sought to provide clarity on the state’s actions and long-term plans. The conference highlighted the breadth of the challenges facing Pakistan and outlined what was described as a unified path forward, while emphasizing the armed forces’ commitment to national security and sovereignty. A central theme of the address was that good governance is essential for Pakistan’s long-term security and stability, with the argument that military operations alone cannot eliminate terrorism and extremism without stronger administrative and institutional capacity. The DG ISPR described security and governance as closely interconnected and cited the National Action Plan (NAP) as a consensus framework requiring effective implementation through measures such as countering extremist narratives, disrupting terror financing, and strengthening institutions. Referring to Pakistan’s population of around 240 to 250 million, he suggested reviewing whether the existing four-province administrative structure adequately serves the goal of good governance and said that, if an administrative reset is considered necessary, it should be decided by the country’s political leadership through constitutional and legal processes reflecting the will of the people. He also underscored the distinction between the military’s responsibility for security and the authority of civilian institutions over political and administrative reforms, reaffirming that such decisions should remain within the constitutional framework. A significant portion of the press conference was dedicated to providing a stark and detailed update on the country’s counterterrorism efforts, presenting an overwhelming amount of operational data. The DG ISPR revealed that security forces have conducted a staggering 40,348 intelligence-based operations (IBOs) across Pakistan so far in 2026, which averages to nearly 200 operations every single day. This relentless operational tempo is a testament to the proactive and aggressive posture adopted by the security forces to root out militancy from every corner of the country, leaving no safe haven for terrorists to operate. Of these, the majority—over 31,000—were carried out in Balochistan, underscoring the province’s central role in the national security strategy and the immense efforts being invested to bring stability to that region. He reported that a total of 3,145 terrorism incidents had taken place in the country in 2026, with 1,971 reported from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 1,148 from Balochistan, and 26 from other parts of the country. The results of these operations, he stated, have been significant, with 2,084 confirmed terrorists eliminated. This, he emphasized, translates to an average of 10 terrorists being killed every day, which he described as the highest operational ratio ever achieved in the country’s history. This high kill ratio is indicative of the intelligence-led nature of the operations, where precise targeting minimizes collateral damage and maximizes the impact on terrorist networks. However, he also acknowledged the heavy price paid for this peace, revealing that 819 Pakistanis have embraced martyrdom this year in the fight against terrorism. This somber figure includes 303 Pakistan Army personnel, 194 police and other law enforcement officials, and 322 innocent civilians. The sacrifice of these brave individuals, he noted, is a debt that can never be fully repaid, but it underscores the determination of the nation to prevail against the scourge of terrorism. He also disclosed that 28 suicide bombings have occurred nationwide, the majority of which, he alleged, were carried out by Afghan nationals. This disclosure highlighted the nexus between cross-border terrorism and the instability in Afghanistan, a point he elaborated on to stress the need for effective border management and regional cooperation. In a crucial clarification that resonated deeply with the public, the DG ISPR addressed the concept of a “hard state,” dispelling any misconceptions about its meaning. He explained that a “hard state” does not refer to military rule, nor does it imply a repressive or authoritarian regime. Instead, he defined it as a country where the Constitution and the rule of law are enforced equally for every individual without any discrimination or elitism. It is a system where all matters are resolved through constitutional and legal mechanisms, and where every citizen is equal before the law, regardless of their social or political standing. This vision of a “hard state” is fundamentally about strengthening the state’s institutions and legal frameworks to ensure justice and accountability for all, thereby creating a more stable and prosperous society where the rights of every citizen are protected. He used this definition to counter the narratives of those who fear a strong state, arguing that a “hard state” is the ultimate guarantor of democracy and individual freedoms, as it prevents the strong from exploiting the weak and ensures that the law is the supreme authority. Turning his focus to the complex security situation in Balochistan, the DG ISPR adopted a nuanced approach that combined a firm security stance with a clear commitment to development and public engagement. He firmly rejected the narrative that the security situation in the province is deteriorating, calling it a deliberate and coordinated campaign to create a false perception. He alleged that certain elite groups and tribal leaders (sardars) have historically opposed social progress to preserve their own power structures, and he stressed the need to empower the people of Balochistan instead of these traditional power brokers. The state’s priority, he declared, is to resolve the genuine grievances of the province’s residents while continuing decisive operations against militant groups who seek to disrupt the peace. He outlined a comprehensive development agenda for the province, detailing that the state would engage directly with the people of Balochistan rather than with disruptive elements. To this end, he highlighted that billions of rupees are being invested in socio-economic development projects across the province.

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.

One question stayed with me long after I attended a workshop under the project titled ‘Digital Trust and Free Expression in the Era of AI’, organized by the Department of Media and Development Communication, University of the Punjab with the support of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan in partnership with the Pakistan-U.S. Alumni Network, was, ‘How will we preserve digital trust and free expression in the age of AI’? As AI becomes an integral part of digital journalism, the question is no longer whether it should be used, and more importantly who should be held responsible when things go wrong. Artificial Intelligence has definitely proven to be a powerful tool for journalists. It can summarize long reports, translate content into multiple languages, follow breaking news, analyze vast quantities of data and even write complete news reports in seconds. All of these capabilities have revolutionized newsroom processes and enabled journalists to process information more efficiently than ever before. But efficiency is not the only measure of ethical journalism. Journalism isn’t about being fast, it’s about informing the public accurately, fairly and responsibly. One of the most valuable lessons I learned from the workshop was that AI does not understand information; it predicts the most likely response based on patterns in the data it has learned from. This distinction is important because when reliable information is unavailable at the time, AI generates responses that seem convincing but inaccurate, but are wrong, which is often referred to as AI hallucination. What’s most concerning is that the AI generated mistakes can appear convincing enough for people to accept them as true. This poses an ethical question: Who should be held responsible if AI-generated news contains misleading information? The burden can’t be placed entirely on the algorithm. AI has no moral judgement or legal accountability. It cannot distinguish between public interest and public harm and is not aware of the social consequences of publishing inaccurate information. This means that the responsibility rests with those who decide to employ these technologies: journalists, editors, newsroom leaders, and media organizations. While AI can help create content, it cannot replace responsibility. This is where ethics become more important than technological advancements. Checking information should not take a back seat to the ‘Publish first’ mentality. With all of the digital platforms that exist today, misinformation can spread from continent to continent within minutes and corrections often fail to reach the same audience. Each unverified headline altered photo or AI-generated mistake can damage the public’s trust, both in a specific news organization and in journalism.   The discussions also reinforced the importance of Media and Information Literacy (MIL). Verification is not only the responsibility of journalists, but also something that is necessary for every digital citizen. Learning how to use reverse image search, source verification techniques, and critical evaluation of online information is no longer an option, it’s essential for protecting ourselves from deception. As AI-generated content becomes increasingly sophisticated, it is essential to verify information before accepting it as true. AI will continue to evolve and so will digital journalism. The challenge is not innovation itself but using it responsibly. Trust is not something algorithms can build, it is something that can be gained only through transparency, accountability and a steadfast dedication to truth. While adopting new technologies to do journalism, let’s not forget that the tools should enhance journalism’s values, not shape journalism. AI may help write the news, but only humans can uphold the ethics behind it. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan or USEFP.