Petroleum Minister’s diagnosis & indictment

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

By Latif Tunio Imagine two people standing outside a bakery. One has not eaten since yesterday. The other has already had breakfast but buys every loaf on the shelf because nobody else should have one. The first person is hungry. The second is greedy. That is the difference we often forget. Human needs are surprisingly small. We need food, shelter, safety, affection and dignity. Yet somewhere along the road to modern civilization, our desires stopped listening to our needs. We no longer ask, “Do I need this?” We ask, “Will people notice if I don’t have it?” Perhaps that is why we live in an age where skyscrapers grow taller while patience grows shorter. Greed is not new. Kings fought wars for gold centuries ago. Empires swallowed nations for spices, land and power. But today greed wears expensive perfume, carries a smartphone and speaks the language of success. It no longer hides in dark corners; sometimes it sits on television panels giving motivational speeches. A hundred years ago, a respected person was often remembered for honesty, wisdom or service to the community. Today, many people first ask, “What car does he drive?” or “How much is she worth?” Character has quietly been replaced by price tags.Social media has made this worse. Every morning millions of people wake up and immediately begin comparing their ordinary lives with someone else’s carefully edited highlights. One person posts a luxury vacation. Another uploads a new phone. Someone else announces another achievement. Nobody uploads sleepless nights, unpaid bills or family arguments. We compare our behind-the-scenes life with everyone else’s movie trailer.Then we wonder why we feel poor. The market has discovered something dangerous: making people dissatisfied is excellent for business. If people become content, who will buy the next upgrade Advertisements rarely sell products anymore. They sell insecurity. Frankly They whisper, “You are incomplete without this watch.” “You are unsuccessful without this car.” “You are unattractive without this cream.” Apparently even happiness now comes with monthly installments. Yet greed is not always born from vanity. Sometimes it grows out of fear. A father worried about rising school fees saves every rupee he can. A mother fears another economic crisis. A young graduate sees unemployment everywhere and begins believing that only endless money can guarantee safety. Fear slowly changes saving into hoarding, and caution into obsession. There is an old saying often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “The Earth provides enough for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed.” The tragedy is that many people no longer know where need ends and greed begins. Another reason is that we have quietly lost the art of contentment. Previous generations owned fewer things but often worried less about owning more. Today many people possess wardrobes full of clothes while insisting they have “nothing to wear.” We buy bigger houses only to spend less time inside them. We own faster internet but have slower conversations. Modern life keeps promising that the next purchase will finally complete us. It never does. Greed also flourishes where justice is weak. When honest people struggle while corrupt people become celebrities, society learns a dangerous lesson. Bribes become “connections.” Fraud becomes “smartness.” Tax evasion becomes “good business.” Before long, honesty begins looking like a financial disability. The message becomes painfully simple: if cheating pays and integrity suffers, why remain honest? This is how corruption stops being an individual crime and becomes a social culture. The damage reaches far beyond bank accounts. Families break apart over inheritance before the funeral flowers have even dried. Lifelong friendships disappear over business deals. Brothers become strangers because land suddenly becomes more valuable than blood. Perhaps the saddest part is that greedy people rarely enjoy what they collect. They spend years protecting possessions they never truly have time to use. They own everything except peace. Nature also pays the bill. Forests disappear because cutting trees is profitable today, even if floods arrive tomorrow. Rivers become sewers because treating waste reduces corporate profits. Mountains are blasted apart, oceans filled with plastic and clean air sold back to us in expensive machines. Humanity has become astonishingly efficient at converting tomorrow’s disasters into today’s profits. Can greed be reduced? Not by preaching alone. Children should learn that success includes honesty, kindness and responsibility—not only salaries. Schools should celebrate integrity as loudly as achievement. Families should teach gratitude before ambition. We also need digital wisdom: learning that a perfect life on a screen is often nothing more than excellent lighting and careful editing. Governments have responsibilities too. Laws must punish corruption without asking whether the offender is rich, famous or politically connected. Justice loses its meaning when it becomes negotiable. Above all, we need to rediscover contentment—not laziness, but the wisdom of knowing when enough is truly enough. A society does not become civilized because it builds taller buildings or produces richer billionaires. It becomes civilized when people can trust one another, when honesty is rewarded instead of mocked, and when success does not require sacrificing conscience. The greatest poverty in the twenty-first century may not be empty pockets. It may be full wallets attached to empty hearts. The writer is a Social activist. He can be reached at tunio.latif786@gmail.com

“Nato is a giant military alliance where there are 32 countries. We have started here as three countries and we have to take very humble but concrete steps”—Makkah defence pact technically same as Nato’s Article 5: Turkish minister, The News, August 9, 2026 The above words of Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan deserve careful attention. Speaking after the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement between Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he went considerably further than the diplomatic language normally accompanying defence cooperation. He described the arrangement as technically the same as NATO’s Article 5 principle of collective defence. More importantly, Fidan disclosed something about its intended institutional evolution. A ministerial committee resembling NATO’s structure is to be created, a permanent secretariat will be established in Saudi Arabia, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan does not envisage an organisation permanently confined to its three founding members. Egypt is already being mentioned as a possible entrant. The question we raised immediately after Makkah has therefore acquired greater urgency: are we witnessing the embryonic formation of an Islamic NATO? The answer requires more caution than either celebration or alarm. The Makkah agreement is unquestionably important. Saudi Arabia combines enormous financial and energy resources with a pivotal position in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Türkiye possesses NATO’s second-largest military, an increasingly sophisticated defence-industrial base and strategic access linking Europe, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state located at the intersection of South Asia, China, Central Asia, Iran and the Arabian Sea. Taken together, the three constitute an unusual coalition of middle powers. Their convergence is also occurring at a moment when the regional order constructed around American predominance is under extraordinary strain. The latest Middle Eastern war has again demonstrated that overwhelming military capability can destroy infrastructure and degrade adversaries without necessarily producing political order. Michael Fuchs recently argued in Foreign Affairs that the United States should finally relinquish its attempt to dominate the Middle East militarily. The proposition is important, but it raises a larger question. If American primacy recedes, what replaces it? International relations offers no reason to assume that withdrawal by a dominant external power automatically produces regional peace. It can produce strategic autonomy. It can equally produce competitive balancing, arms races and struggles among regional powers seeking to fill the resulting space. Makkah Defence Agreement represents both an opportunity and a danger. The opportunity is the emergence of indigenous collective security. For much of the modern history of the Middle East, regional states have depended upon external powers for protection while simultaneously fearing abandonment by those same protectors. Britain once performed this role in the Gulf. The United States subsequently constructed a much larger military architecture based upon bases, arms supplies, bilateral guarantees and partnerships. Dependence created security, but never complete strategic autonomy. Saudi Arabia’s search for alternatives must be understood against this background. Türkiye has followed another path: remaining inside NATO while steadily expanding its capacity for independent action. Pakistan maintains a strategic partnership with China without severing its relationships with Washington, Riyadh or Ankara. These are not states simply changing camps. They are practising what contemporary scholarship increasingly describes as hybrid or non-exclusive alignment: cultivating overlapping relationships rather than accepting the rigid binaries of Cold War alliance politics. This makes Fidan’s second assertion as important as his comparison with Article 5. He insists that Makkah is not directed against Iran or any other country. That principle must survive implementation. An alliance requires deterrence; it does not necessarily require a permanent enemy. If the emerging arrangement becomes an anti-Iran coalition, it will institutionalise one of the Muslim world’s most dangerous fault lines. Iran is not a temporary presence in the Gulf. It is a major civilisation and regional power whose geography cannot be altered by sanctions, regime change strategies or military pressure. Pakistan has particular reason to understand this. Iran is its neighbour. Internal sectarian peace, Balochistan, border security, Afghanistan and regional connectivity all make a permanently hostile Pakistan-Iran relationship strategically irrational. Nor should Makkah become simply the Muslim military response to Israel. The Palestinian question cannot be removed from regional security, as proponents of the Abraham Accords sometimes appeared to assume. Normalisation and economic integration cannot indefinitely substitute for a political settlement guaranteeing Palestinian rights and viable statehood. At the same time, transforming the region into two permanent military camps would hardly produce the peace Palestinians themselves require. The better possibility is, thus, not an Islamic NATO in the literal sense. NATO emerged from the particular conditions of post-war Europe and bipolar confrontation with the Soviet Union. The Muslim world is geographically dispersed, politically heterogeneous and internally divided. Its states have very different relations with Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and Tel Aviv. Türkiye itself demonstrates the difficulty of imposing a binary model: it would simultaneously belong to NATO and to the emerging Makkah Accord. That apparent contradiction may actually tell us something important about the international order now taking shape. The twenty-first century may be characterised less by fixed blocs than by overlapping arrangements through which middle powers seek room for manoeuvre between larger powers. This is also where geoeconomics becomes indispensable. Saudi finance and energy, Türkiye’s manufacturing and defence technology and Pakistan’s geography, human resources and access towards China, Central Asia and the Arabian Sea could create something considerably more important than another military organisation. Egypt’s eventual participation would add the Suez Canal, the Arab world’s largest population and another major military power. A security structure built around such capabilities could eventually support trade, energy corridors, defence production, technological cooperation, food security and infrastructure connectivity. Without this economic foundation, an Islamic NATO would remain largely an exercise in military coordination. China will watch these developments closely. Beijing requires Gulf energy, values Iran, has deep interests in Pakistan and maintains substantial economic relations across the Middle East. It is unlikely to wish to inherit America’s expensive role as regional military hegemon. A regional arrangement capable of providing stability without forcing states into an

South Korea is one of the most remarkable countries in the world. Shortly after the mid-20th century, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. According to World Bank, it had a per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) of roughly 159 USD in 1960. The Helen Kellogg Institute For International Studies (University of Notre Dame) points out that South Korea’s per-capita income in early 1960 was lower than Haiti, Ethiopia and Yemen and over 40% of the South Korea’s population was suffering from absolute poverty. However, with right public policy actions implemented in the right direction, South Korea was among the most rapidly growing economies in the world by the start of 21st century. Do you know that South Korea had exponentially increased its per-capita GDP to 12,710 USD (in 2000) that then sky-rocketed to over USD 36000 in 2025? A question that one would ask is, what formed the basis of this rapid economic growth and a resulting reduction in poverty in South Korea? A World Bank report “Republic of Korea: Four decades of equitable growth” points out that South Korea has experienced rapid economic growth in 1990, where its real GDP grew by over 5 percent each year except 1998. Absolute poverty decreased incredibly in South Korea during 1975 – 2001. Those who remained poor were either had low educational achievements or were unemployed or underemployed. In 1975, South Korea earned USD 12.4 billion through trade that then skyrocketed to a trade volume of USD 314.6 billion in 2002. Thus, in a span of 27 years, trade volume of South Korea increased over 25 times which is nothing less than a remarkable success story. A journey that helped South Korea to achieve rags-to-riches status in 3 decades time. In my opinion, education made a significant difference in South Korean society and made it more socially resilient to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. As we all know that with education and the use of common sense, we make better life choices that then helps us is attaining better results for us and our families. Do you know that South Korean society is one of the most educated societies in the world? As per Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), over 58% of masses in South Korea has tertiary education. In-fact, South Korea performed better than Luxembourg, Australia, Norway, Netherlands and several other countries when it comes to percentage of masses (25 – 64 years) who have completed tertiary education in 2025. Highly educated masses mean highly qualified labour that can help any country in commencing sustainable social and economic development over a sustained period. We all are familiar with Samsung Electronics and the leading role it plays in connecting countries and people across the globe. Do you know that Samsung Electronics is a South Korean company? In 2025, Samsung Electronics declared a revenue worth a whooping USD 233.3 billion. Similarly, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd is another South Korean motor vehicles and parts manufacturing company. According to Forbes, in 2025, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd declared a financial revenue worth a whooping USD 128.4 billion including a profit of USD 9.1 billion. Hyundai Motor Company pointed out that it sold over 4 million vehicles worldwide out of which close to a million vehicles were electrified vehicles. Likewise, Kia Corporation is South Korea’s oldest motor vehicles manufacturing company and has a capacity to produce over 1.4 million vehicles each year. Kia Corporation has over 40,000 employees and normally reports an annual revenue of over USD 17 billion each year.  LG Electronics is another South Korean tech giant that reported a revenue of USD 62 billion in 2025. Finally, SK Hynix Inc is another South Korean company that manufactures semiconductor products and had reported an annual revenue of USD 51.2 billion in 2025 with profits over USD 18 billion. It is crucial to mention here that SK Hynix Inc is among the largest memory chip manufacturer’s in the world and acts as a rival to Samsung. Moreover, it is an important memory supplier to Apple and the components supplied by SK Hynix Inc are widely used in iPhone, iPad and MacBooks. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports that South Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) was USD 1.71 trillion in 2023 and its per-capita GDP was USD 33,121. Do you know that in 2020, South Korea invested USD 112.9 billion on domestic research and development (R&D). Globally, it stood on fifth position when it comes to spending on R&D. Top spending on R&D in 2020 was commenced by United States with USD 720.9 billion, followed by China with USD 582.8 billion, Japan with USD 174.1 billion and Germany with USD 143.4 billion. Despite commencing rapid social and economic development, South Korea has not compromised on environmental conservation. According to The Korea Times newspaper, South Korea planted roughly 10 billion trees from 1960 to 1980. As a direct result of this, Korea Forest Service (KFS) reported that South Korea’s forest growth rate exponentially increased from 50 cubic meters per hectare in 1990 to 148 cubic meters per hectare in 2015. Thus, in a span of 25 years, forests in South Korea observed nearly 3 times increase in growth rate. It serves as an excellent example that we can commence economic growth, eradicate absolute poverty and conserve environment simultaneously. The already discussed example shatters the paradigm that we must compromise and degrade environment to commence economic growth. A successful reforestation program in South Korea proves the fact that we can commence economic growth and protect environment simultaneously. Do you know that trees are the most inexpensive carbon capture and storage devices? Moreover, healthy forests help us to decrease the concentration of carbon dioxide gas in atmosphere, mitigate climate change, prevent biodiversity loss, avoid landslides and provide clean air and water by decreasing pollution. We must understand this basic fact that for our commenced economic growth to be sustainable, we must preserve and protect environment. In-fact, Sustainable Development has 3 pillars

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.