Omar Musa secures 2026 Miles Franklin Award with Fierceland

By Amir Ismaiel August 12 is observed around the world as International Youth Day. The day is observed on the recommendation of the United Nations to highlight the problems faced by young people, recognise their important role in economic and social development, and ensure their meaningful participation in decision-making. The theme of International Youth Day 2026 is “Different Contexts, Common Aspirations.” The theme recognises that young people live in different national, local and social conditions, but their basic hopes are almost the same everywhere. They want a dignified life, equal opportunities, good employment, quality education and a safe and secure future. Pakistan has 64% of those who are under the age of 30, out of the 64% half of the numbers are in educational institutions and rest of them are out with some of the reasons. We are among the countries that spend the least on education, allocating around 2% of its total budget to the education . India spends around 4% while Sri Lanka and Bangladesh allocate around 2% or less. The United Nations recommends that 4% should be allocated to education. Pakistan has more than 190 universities including private and government over 100 sub-campuses, with nearly two million students studying in higher education. Providing four to five million jobs for these students in the coming years will be essential. University students face many problems in their daily routine on campus, These include rising fees, low quality of education, a lack of research opportunities, shortage of hostels and transport, inequality and harassment. At the school level, more than 15 million children are still out of school, these stats are same for years . Poor educational facilities, shortage of furniture, lack of clean drinking water, shortage of teachers and limited funding are among the main reasons. The state of higher education is also worrying. Only one Pakistani public university, Quaid-i-Azam University is among the world’s top 500 universities, while around 10 Indian universities are included in the same list. These figures raise serious questions about government priorities and the gap between official claims and the actual condition of education. Theme of International Youth Day directly connects with the problems faced by Pakistani youth. Quality education, decent employment, mental health and meaningful participation in decision-making have remained major issues for young people for decades. These problems have also increased frustration, intolerance and extremism among youth . When an educated person fails to achieve his or her goals because of a lack of merit and fair opportunities frustration naturally grows. Unfortunately, youth in Pakistan still lack a clear vision for their future and meaningful government support. The Prime Minister’s Youth Programme has mainly focused on initiatives such as laptops and scholarships, but there is a need for a much broader plan covering employment, career development, mental health and future opportunities for youth . Holding one or two youth conferences during the year cannot be enough to address these issues.Climate change has become a major challenge for the world, but Pakistan still needs a stronger plan to involve young people in dealing with it. There is also a lack of awareness and practical programmes through which young people can contribute to tackling climate change. Mental health is another serious issue. The United Nations continues to highlight the importance of addressing mental health problems among young people, but in Pakistan the issue has not received the attention it deserves. In many countries, educational institutions have dedicated departments and support systems for students’ mental health and wellbeing. Pakistan needs similar facilities. Reports of serious mental health problems and suicides among students should be treated as a national concern. Today’s students wants to see solutions to its problems through its own participation and leadership. Across Asia, the growing role of Generation Z in political and government affairs has been remarkable. India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka have witnessed major youth movements in which youth have challenged governments and demanded political and social change. Youth are also important stakeholders in educational institutions. Around the world students participate in student unions and societies, which help them develop both academic and personal skills. Debates, dialogue, sports and other activities help students build confidence, leadership and communication skills. In countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, students are generally allowed to form unions and societies in educational institutions. These organisations are supported by universities and provide students with opportunities to develop leadership and democratic skills. Many people who later become successful in medicine, science, social sciences, sports, politics and other fields gain valuable experience through such activities during their student years. The well-known historian Dr Mubarak Ali wrote in his book Tareekh Ke Naye Zaviye that when ideological politics began among young people in the subcontinent, nationalism was one of its early forms. Students became divided between the political right and left. However, this ideological debate also encouraged students to read and study different ideas. They began to understand society and its structure through different political and social perspectives. This process helped young people develop stronger intellectual and political awareness. Democratic societies recognise the right of students to participate in political and democratic activities. In Pakistan, however, student unions have faced restrictions for almost three decades. They were banned mainly because of allegations of political violence and clashes on campuses. As a result, universities lost an important platform for political discussion, debate on social issues and dialogue on national affairs.The culture of student unions in the 1990s are very different from the environment today. In the age of artificial intelligence, social media and digital communication, educational institutions can develop a new and more responsible model of student representation. Pakistan needs to create an environment where youth can discuss their problems through dialogue and democratic participation. Students should be represented in educational decision-making bodies and given a meaningful role in consultation. Instead of taking their problems to the streets, young people should have proper platforms where they can present their concerns directly to policymakers and

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