Riyadh’s Strategic Triangle: Security, Stabi…

By Ali Haider Iran’s nuclear program has been frequently described as defiance of the West. But the history reveals a different picture. It appears paradoxical that the very infrastructure of the nuclear facilities in Iran was built under the patronage of the Americans during the Cold War period. The project, which initially symbolized cooperation between Washington and Tehran, became one of the most dangerous confrontations in international relations. This transformation demonstrates how alliances shift in geopolitics.   The roots of the Iranian nuclear program can be traced back to the Cold War period in which the United States and the USSR were locked in idealogical and geopolitical rivalry. In 1950s, when the two superpowers were trying to increase their sphere of influence on the planet by establishing new alliances, US President Dwight Eisenhower introduced the initiative “Atoms for Peace” in 1953. On surface level, the program was devoted to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, however, it fulfilled the geopolitical interests of Washington as well. Several countries, including Pakistan, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and Iran get benefited from the program. Yet the degree of aid was dependent on the strategic significance of each country. Iran, under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, became one of Washington’s closest regional allies. When Mohammad Mossadegh came to power in 1953, he nationalized the Iranian oil industry that ultimately affected British economic interests and aroused American fear that Iran would align with the Soviet Union. In order to save Iran from becoming a Soviet ally, the CIA, along with Britain’s MI6, undertook Operation Ajax, resulting in the ouster of Mossadegh and the restoration of power to the Shah. Such close relations between the United States and Shah Reza Pahlavi facilitated the signing of a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in 1957. The United States helped establish the Tehran Research Reactor, aided Iran with highly-enriched uranium to be used as reactor fuel and provided training to Iranian scientists in American universities. At that time, the nuclear aspirations of Iran did not provoke any concerns in the global community due to the fact that the country was considered a loyal ally of the United States. The technology that is now considered a threat by USA, used to be advertised by Washington itself as a tool of development. The situation changed drastically after the 1979 Islamic Revolution when Shah was overthrown and the Islamic Republic of Iran was created under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who pursued the agenda of anti-Americanism. Seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and the resulting hostage crisis broke off diplomatic relations and transformed allies into bitter enemies. Initially, Iranian leadership suspended its nuclear program, and Khomeini showed religious concerns about it. However, soon the Iran-Iraq War changed the perspective of Iranian leaders.In the ensuing years, Iran started rebuilding its nuclear program with the help of Russia and China, while at the same time pursuing the development of uranium enrichment facilities independently. This dramatic reversal transformed Iran’s nuclear program from a symbol of strategic partnership into a source of deep geopolitical mistrust that continues to shape Western policy toward Tehran. Matters came to a head in 2002, when the National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed the existence of two undeclared facilities, Natanz and Arak. Subsequent inspections of the sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency found no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program, but criticized Iran for not reporting certain nuclear activities before. This became the core of the conflict: the West demanded transparency from Iran, while Iran claimed that its rights were enshrined in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Gradually, the situation developed into an international crisis. In 2006, the IAEA referred the case of Iran to the UN Security Council, after which the UN imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop the enrichment program. The US and EU imposed sanctions on Iran and restricted its banking system and oil exports, these sanctions brought Iran’s economy to its knees, causing severe damage to its currency. However, unprecedented economic pressure did not cause Iran to abandon its enrichment program.The Iranian case demonstrates that technological capability alone is rarely the real source of international conflict; rather, it is the absence of trust and transparency that transforms civilian nuclear technology into a geopolitical crisis. In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed which was considered the most important non-proliferation deal in the modern world. Iran was willing to place strict limits on the enrichment of uranium, reduce its enriched uranium stocks, and make changes to its nuclear sites in return for the lifting of the sanctions. This deal proved that effective diplomacy can be used to manage the risk of nuclear proliferation instead of coercion. Nonetheless, this was short-lived. The success of the JCPOA, despite its eventual collapse, illustrated that diplomatic engagement can achieve outcomes that years of sanctions and pressure often fail to deliver. In 2018, President Donald Trump left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action saying that the deal overlooked the ballistic missile program, activities in the region, and the sunset clauses. America re-imposed tough sanctions and put maximum pressure on Iran. This move did not make Iran sign another deal but led Iran to abandon all of its commitments step-by-step and expanded uranium enrichment to levels of up to 60%. Indeed, the nuclear question is still relevant today. The program that was developed with the assistance of the US nearly seven decades ago has now become America’s major concern. Iran claims that its nuclear program is purely peaceful, whereas the US and its Western allies believe that increasing enrichment capacity of the country may pave the way for developing nuclear weapons. Sanctions could not prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capacities, whereas the JCPOA demonstrated that negotiation and transparency measures can be far more efficient in preventing proliferation than coercion. The history of Iran’s nuclear program illustrates two important lessons. First, it is not the technology that causes conflict between states, but mistrust. Second,

Stockholm Resilience Centre defines resilience as the capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop. System can be an individual, a forest, a city or an economy. In simple words, resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem to deal with disturbances and returns to its former state. When it comes to water resource management in Pakistan, unfortunately, we are not managing our water resource as sustainably as we should. WWF Pakistan points out a robust difference in water consumption between communities in Pakistan. Those who can afford uses 10 times more water than global average that stands at 10 gallons a day. On the contrary, poor lacks access to water in Pakistan. How sad it is that there exist two different water realities in Pakistan. On one hand, we have people that uses 100 gallons of water each day. On the other hand, we have masses that don’t even have access to water. We must put an end to existing water inequality in Pakistan. Water forms the backbone of our society and economy and without sustainable water management practices in place, we can neither have socially equitable society nor can we achieve sustainable economic growth for Pakistan. We must ensure that each person in Pakistan should have access to clean water regardless of geographical location and financial resources at disposal. If we really want to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Pakistan, we must end water inequality in Pakistan. An access to clean water is a basic human right and thus it should be available to all in the country. It is important to mention here that each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is strongly coupled with how we manage water as a natural resource. If we mange water wisely (with tomorrow in mind), we can easily achieve all 17 SDGs for Pakistan. However, an unsustainable water resource management will act as Achilles heel and prevent us in realizing Sustainable Development Goals. We certainly need a paradigm shift in managing water as a resource in Pakistan. Ministry of Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (Government of Pakistan) highlights that at the time of independence, per capita water availability in Pakistan was over 5000 cubic meters each year. Unfortunately, today, per capita water availability in Pakistan is sharply reduced to roughly 1000 cubic meters per person each year. In other words, each person in Pakistan now only has 1/5 of the water available every year, when compared to 1947 (at the time of independence). Public policy makers in Pakistan must tackle decreasing per capita water availability in Pakistan with utmost seriousness and do all it takes to tackle it in the most sustainable manner. Before we head on to solutions, we must understand the root causes of decreasing per capita water availability in Pakistan. According to Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), population in Pakistan has increased 7-fold since independence in 1947. Naturally, when we distribute the same amount of water we have each year on 7 times more population, the per capita water availability in Pakistan would then sharply reduce. ACIAR then stresses on the fact that irrigated agriculture in Pakistan consumes 95% of surface water supply in the country. Another report from Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) highlights that irrigated agriculture consumes 93% of the available water resource and acts as the single largest sector of economy employing 44% of the labour force, generating 60% of the foreign exchange earnings and produces roughly a quarter of Pakistan’s gross domestic product (GDP). The already spoken report from PCRWR then points out that Pakistan waste 60% of water from canals to farm gates. Do you know that per capita water storage ability of Pakistan is roughly 159 m3? On the contrary, the per-capita water storage ability of USA and Australia is over 5000m3, followed by China with a per-capita water storage ability of 2200m3, Egypt 2362 m3, Turkey 1402 m3 and Iran with 492m3. PCRWR further indicates that inadequate water storage ability has forced Pakistan to lose 120 BCM of water during floods of 2010, 2012 and 2014. If Pakistan had ample surface water storage infrastructure in place, it could had saved at least half of 120 BCM of surface water that could then be used to increase per-capita water availability in the country. The remaining 60 BCM of floodwater could restore Indus River Delta where many species are fighting for their survival due to reduced river flow. There is a dire need for Pakistan to build small, medium and large dams to store surface water. Doing so, will increase surface water availability on year-round basis, decrease flood related damage to agricultural lands and infrastructure, increase per-capita water availability, reduce reliance on underground water, recharge aquifers and mitigate their depletion. We have what it takes to build a series of small, medium and large dams in Pakistan to harvest floodwater during monsoon season. Do you know that 1 billion cubic meters of water has 1 trillion litres of water? Now imagine, if 50 litres of water cost 1 USD, the price tag of 1 billion cubic meters (or 1 trillion litres) of water would be 20 billion USD. Thus, a cumulative cost for 60 BCM of floodwater would roughly be USD 1200 billion. Now, if we would sharply reduce the already spoken figure to its one-tenth, the cost would still be a whooping USD 120 billion for 60 BCM of floodwater. We must understand that this is just the price of water. It is crucial to mention here that water forms the basis of all sorts of social and economic development, and we must learn to manage water sustainably to ensure a resilient Pakistan for all. We must invest heavily in constructing dams of all sizes to increase surface water availability and to enhance per-capita water in Pakistan. Here is an example. Do you know that Sweden has roughly 10,000 dams to manage surface water. It is quite simple, the

The United Nations was founded in 1945 after the League of Nations had failed to preserve peace. Its Security Council was designed for the world that emerged from the Second World War, with five permanent members holding the veto and a small number of elected seats. That basic architecture has scarcely changed since 1965, when the non-permanent membership rose from six to ten. The veto was meant to keep the great powers inside the system and to prevent open conflict among them. Eight decades later the organisation still carries the imprint of 1945 while the membership of the United Nations has grown to 193 states and the global population exceeds eight billion. The Council’s composition therefore no longer reflects the international community it is supposed to serve. In 2008 the General Assembly launched the Intergovernmental Negotiations to consider reform. The discussions have centred on five linked questions: categories of membership, the veto, regional representation, the size of the Council and its working methods. Africa still has no permanent seat. Latin America, South Asia and large parts of the Muslim world remain under-represented. The present arrangement is widely seen as a remnant of the colonial order that concentrates power among a few states. Many argue that emerging powers and significant regional actors—Pakistan, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and India among them—ought to enjoy greater weight if the Council is to regain legitimacy and effectiveness. Yet the debate is locked. The Group of Four seeks permanent seats for itself and two for Africa. The African Group demands two permanent seats with full veto rights. France and Mexico urge the permanent members to refrain voluntarily from using the veto in cases of mass atrocity. The Uniting for Consensus group, led by Pakistan and supported by Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Canada and South Korea, rejects any enlargement of the permanent category. It proposes instead an expansion of elected seats that would be longer-term and renewable. The rival camps cancel one another’s majorities, leaving the process stalled. Enlarging permanent membership would not reform the Council so much as entrench new privileges. Additional veto-holders would multiply the occasions on which national interests can block action. The repeated American vetoes that have shielded Israel and allowed the destruction of Gaza to continue illustrate how a single permanent member can nullify the will of the rest. More permanent members would introduce further competing interests and raise the risk of paralysis. Once granted, permanent status is effectively irreversible; the new members would be free to obstruct any future attempt to revise the arrangement. India’s claim to a permanent seat invites particular scrutiny. Permanent membership requires sustained confidence in a state’s fidelity to the Charter. India’s refusal to implement successive Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, its rejection of a United Nations-supervised plebiscite and its unilateral constitutional changes in the territory sit uneasily with that standard. Concerns about human-rights practices in the disputed region and elsewhere, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, reports of transnational repression, the Citizenship Amendment Act, the treatment of Rohingya refugees and a foreign policy that has offered strategic comfort to Israel all raise legitimate questions. India’s status outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty adds a further layer of unease. Germany’s candidature faces different objections. Europe already holds two permanent seats. Adding a third would deepen regional imbalance. Recent German positions on Gaza have been criticised as inconsistent with the very humanitarian principles permanent members are expected to uphold. The country’s failure to secure even a non-permanent seat in a recent election suggests that its aspirations do not command the necessary breadth of support. The Uniting for Consensus proposal offers a more measured path. Expanding the elected membership from ten to twenty would open opportunities for Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean without creating new permanent centres of power. Periodic elections would keep members accountable to the wider membership. Rotation would allow more states to contribute to the maintenance of peace and security. Broader participation could improve the quality of deliberation on intractable questions such as Palestine, Ukraine and other long-standing disputes, without multiplying vetoes that have so often produced deadlock. Reform should strengthen the Council’s legitimacy without sacrificing its capacity to act. Expanding permanent membership would create additional privileged seats, heighten the risk of institutional paralysis and make subsequent change more difficult still. Wider geographical representation is better achieved by enlarging the elected ranks. The Uniting for Consensus approach preserves the existing institutional framework, enhances inclusivity, promotes accountability through regular elections and reflects the interests of the membership as a whole. Sustainable reform therefore lies in widening participation and reinforcing regional balance rather than in extending permanent privilege and the veto.

I first learned to think of rivers as questions of survival, not just geography, from the late Dr. Mohammad Moniruzzaman Miah, the visionary Dhaka University vice-chancellor and geographer whose work shaped a generation of Bangladeshi thinking on transboundary water. In the years when Khaleda Zia’s government stood firm in defending Bangladesh’s water rights, I was part of the technical effort that helped galvanize opposition to India’s proposed 1,500 MW Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak River in Manipur — a fight documented in the broader scholarly record of that transnational resistance movement. That episode taught a lesson Bangladesh cannot afford to forget as it approaches the next deadline in its water diplomacy: December 2026, when the landmark 1996 Ganges Water Treaty expires. The Ganges Treaty, signed in December 1996, was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough — the first long-term water-sharing arrangement between India and Bangladesh. But thirty years on, its formula looks less like fairness and more like a structural handicap for the downstream nation. Under the treaty, dry-season flow at the Farakka Barrage (January 1 to May 31) is divided in alternating ten-day blocks. When total flow is 70,000 cusecs or less, the two countries split it 50-50. But when flow reaches 75,000 cusecs or more — precisely the scenario Bangladesh needs most, during peak dry-season stress — India takes a fixed 40,000 cusecs off the top, and Bangladesh gets only the remainder. In practice, the treaty guarantees India a floor while leaving Bangladesh’s share to fluctuate with whatever is left. For a delta nation of 175 million people, dependent on the Ganges-Padma system for irrigation, drinking water, fisheries, and salinity control, that asymmetry has never been sustainable. It is even less so now, as climate change intensifies dry-season scarcity and accelerates saline intrusion along the coast. Bangladesh is not asking for charity. It is asking for a renewed, predictable framework that reflects present-day hydrological and demographic realities — not the assumptions of three decades ago. That renewal must also confront a public health emergency that the original treaty never anticipated: the mobilization of naturally occurring arsenic into the very groundwater tens of millions of Bangladeshis depend on for drinking water. The mechanism is worth explaining plainly. Reduced dry-season flow in the Ganges limits natural flushing and recharge of shallow aquifers. Farmers and municipalities, deprived of adequate surface water, turn increasingly to groundwater pumping for irrigation and drinking supply. That heavy extraction alters subsurface flow and oxygen conditions, encouraging microbial processes that break down buried organic carbon and release arsenic bound in iron-rich sediments — arsenic that occurs naturally in the geology of the Bengal delta. It’s important to be precise here: most researchers attribute the origin of this arsenic primarily to natural, geogenic sources within the delta’s Holocene sediments, not to the Farakka Barrage itself. But many Bangladeshi hydrologists and public health researchers argue, credibly, that reduced Ganges flow and the resulting over-reliance on groundwater pumping act as an accelerant — turning a latent geological hazard into an active public health catastrophe. Whatever the precise weighting of causes, the outcome is not in dispute: Bangladesh is living through what the World Health Organization has called the largest mass poisoning of a population in history. The economic toll is staggering and measurable. Studies estimate that arsenic contamination has reduced Bangladesh’s effective rural labor supply by roughly 8 percent — a contraction larger than the labor-market shock the United States experienced during the Great Recession. Projections suggest arsenic-related mortality and morbidity could cost the economy up to $13 billion over twenty years in lost productivity alone. Millions of person-days are lost annually to arsenicosis, and the neurotoxic effects on children threaten the cognitive development of the next generation — a bottleneck on Bangladesh’s long-term growth prospects. Contaminated irrigation water enters the food chain, straining agricultural yields and export credibility. At the household level, families spend hundreds of millions of taka annually on treatment, exhausting savings and pushing the rural poor deeper into poverty. Visible skin lesions bring social stigma, job loss, and marginalization, particularly for women. This is not an abstract environmental dispute; it is a slow-moving national emergency with a very real balance sheet. This debate does not exist in isolation. It sits alongside Bangladesh’s long-stalled push for a Teesta River sharing agreement, another dispute where upstream control and India’s domestic politics — particularly in West Bengal — have repeatedly delayed progress. Dhaka has made clear that a fair, long-term renewal of the Ganges pact is now central to the broader trajectory of India-Bangladesh relations. The two issues are linked in substance as much as in diplomacy: both test whether the region can move from a “mercantile” approach to shared rivers, in which every cusec is treated as a zero-sum resource to be captured upstream, toward an approach that treats water as a shared trust with obligations that flow downstream as well as up. Given this, the renewal of the Ganges Treaty must do more than reallocate cusecs. It must treat adequate, dependable freshwater flow as a public health intervention, not merely an irrigation input. Diluting arsenic concentrations in shallow aquifers, sustaining natural flushing, and reducing pressure to over-pump groundwater all depend on Bangladesh receiving a demonstrably larger and more reliable share of dry-season Ganges flow than the 1996 formula allows. Given the scale of what’s at stake — public health, food security, and the credibility of a 175-million-person delta nation’s future — this renewal should not be negotiated behind closed doors on India’s terms alone. Bangladesh should press for the process to include independent, internationally recognized water and public health experts, convened under UN auspices, to assess minimum flow requirements against verifiable arsenic, salinity, and agricultural data. This is not a call to internationalize a bilateral treaty in perpetuity; it is a call for technical objectivity in setting the numbers that will govern Bangladesh’s water security for the next generation. India, for its part, has its own legitimate claims — competing agricultural demand in West Bengal, and domestic

Pakistan’s growing diplomatic influence has entered a new phase as Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir lead the country’s strategic engagement with the world, strengthening alliances and projecting Pakistan as an important voice in regional peace and security. The signing of the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye represents a major milestone in Pakistan’s foreign and security policy. The agreement brings together three influential nations through a framework of collective defence, enhanced military cooperation and a shared commitment to regional stability. In recent months, Pakistan’s defence capabilities and strategic importance have received increased international attention. The role of the Pakistan Army in national security and regional stability has been a central factor in shaping Pakistan’s strategic partnerships, while Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s engagement with international counterparts has highlighted the importance of defence diplomacy in promoting peace and cooperation. The global perception of Pakistan’s strategic role has evolved as Islamabad has continued to demonstrate its capacity to engage with major powers and regional stakeholders. Under Field Marshal Asim Munir’s leadership, Pakistan’s military diplomacy has focused on strengthening partnerships, supporting stability and advancing dialogue as a pathway to resolving regional challenges. Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif has complemented these efforts through active diplomatic outreach, engaging world leaders and strengthening Pakistan’s relationships with key allies. Whenever Pakistan’s leadership has engaged internationally, these visits have increasingly focused on expanding cooperation, improving economic ties and promoting peace initiatives. Pakistan’s diplomatic role in encouraging dialogue during tensions involving the United States and Iran also attracted international attention. US President Donald Trump acknowledged Pakistan’s leadership efforts in supporting peace and dialogue, reflecting the country’s potential role as a constructive bridge between nations. Pakistan continues to maintain strong strategic relations with major international partners, including China, while also enjoying deep historical and security ties with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and other Middle Eastern countries. Iran has repeatedly highlighted the importance of its relationship with Pakistan and recognised the value of regional cooperation. The Makkah Declaration further strengthens this strategic momentum. The agreement reflects the shared commitment of Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan to collective security and regional stability. It establishes that any armed attack against one of the three states will be regarded as an attack against all, while enhancing defence cooperation, military coordination and strategic collaboration. Built on historic relations, Islamic solidarity and common interests, the declaration aims to strengthen collective deterrence and contribute towards peace, security and prosperity. The emerging partnership between Pakistan’s political and defence leadership is being viewed by supporters as a coordinated national effort to protect Pakistan’s interests and expand its international role. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s diplomatic engagement and Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s strategic approach have together shaped a more proactive foreign policy outlook. The Makkah summit could become a defining moment in Pakistan’s international journey—strengthening its alliances, enhancing its strategic relevance and reinforcing its message that Pakistan seeks peace through cooperation, dialogue and responsible global engagement.

Distrust in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is linked to a small but organized group that allegedly used social media manipulation, propaganda, and genuine public grievances to create an impression of widespread support disconnected from reality, deepening divisions within society and straining relations between the state and its citizens. The Rawalakot protests are said to have involved only a small fraction of AJK’s population of about four million, with fewer than 40,000 participants at peak attendance and likely around 10,000–15,000 overall, while more than five times that number reportedly traveled from Rawalakot to Rawalpindi on June 6 and 7. Many families moved weddings to Rawalpindi and Islamabad, sick people and schoolchildren left the town, and hundreds of families delayed school and college admissions until August because of the disruption. Most residents remained away from the protests to protect their families, forming a “silent majority,” while around 90 percent of people in other districts are said not to support the protesters’ agenda. Large political rallies in Muzaffarabad, Kotli, Dhirkot, and Bhimbar are taken as evidence of stronger support for the constitutional political process than for the Rawalakot sit-in. Around 10,000–15,000 protesters are held responsible for disrupting daily life, damaging the economy, creating fear and uncertainty, and causing disorder over an issue that could have been resolved through legislation, dialogue, and democratic institutions rather than confrontation and violence. Aided by a few journalists acting as propagandists, the movement is accused of using manipulated images, fake news, and emotional appeals to create the impression that the whole of Azad Kashmir supports it, even though the participants are said to constitute less than 10 percent of Rawalakot’s own population.   The government has addressed many demands by reducing electricity and flour prices, abolishing refugee ministries, reducing the number of ministers, halving the property transfer tax, completing the Rathwa Hariyam Bridge, withdrawing FIRs and legal cases, compensating the families of those killed and 56 injured people, providing a government job to Azhar’s brother, approving a Rs. 5.5 billion PC-1 for MRI facilities, and approving a Rs. 9 billion PC-1 to improve the power transmission system.   The application to make Azad Kashmir Bank a scheduled bank has been submitted to the State Bank of Pakistan, a move that will strengthen the financial sector and provide greater access to banking services for the people. The health card has been restored, a vital social safety net program that provides access to medical care for those who cannot afford it, and its restoration was a major victory for the people. Two new boards of education have been established, decentralizing the education system and allowing for more focused and effective administration of schools. The Mansehra, Muzaffarabad and Mangla expressways are included in the CPEC project, a game-changing development that will bring massive investment, improve connectivity, and create economic opportunities for the region. The establishment of Mirpur Airport was announced by the Prime Minister of Pakistan on live television, a major milestone that will open up the region to the world and facilitate trade and tourism, and work on the feasibility has started, with the project now moving from the planning stage to reality. The quota system has ended, a long-standing demand that was seen as discriminatory and unjust, and its abolition was a major step towards equality and fairness. Additional departments were abolished and merged with existing departments, a move that reduced bureaucracy and made the government more efficient. The e-tendering of electricity meters was approved, a reform that will ensure transparency and fairness in the procurement process. The demand for 30 KVA for schools and colleges was approved, and the notification has been issued, ensuring that educational institutions will have access to a reliable power supply. Now, among the remaining demands, there is a demand for 4 tunnels and bridges, infrastructure projects that are undeniably needed and would greatly benefit the people, but in reality one single tunnel is estimated to be completed in 10 billion rupees, and the total development budget of Azad Kashmir is less than 40 billion rupees, meaning that these projects cannot be built overnight. The government or no one has any magical capabilities, and no airport, bridges, and tunnels can be built overnight, as they require years of planning, feasibility studies, environmental assessments, and massive financial outlays that must be spread over many years.   In fact, after approving so many demands, after demonstrating such a clear willingness to address the grievances of the people, to insist on only one remaining demand and to lay siege to the entire region and paralyze the lives of millions, one must ask a crucial question: is it the stubborn government or the action committee that is being unreasonable?   The so-called peaceful revolutionary sit-in of the banned Joint Action Committee has been completely exposed for what it really is, and the mask of peaceful protest has slipped to reveal the ugly face of violent insurgency. Their so-called rational teams, which were presented as peaceful negotiators and organizers, are in fact positioned on rooftops with state-of-the-art SMG guns and ultra-expensive military binoculars, and their purpose is not to maintain order but to monitor the security forces on the ground, tracking their movements and planning for a confrontation. This is not a political sit-in, which is a legitimate form of protest in a democracy, but a planned military confrontation against the security forces of the state, a deliberate strategy to provoke a reaction and to create martyrs. Recently a banned Action Committee’s leader made a revealing statement, admitting to the supply of modern US-made M4 rifles to troublemakers, a serious accusation that confirms the armed nature of the group and its intent to use violence against the state. The banned JAAC is using fake and AI generated videos and posts to get the support of the people, manufacturing evidence and creating a false reality to manipulate public opinion, and these fabricated materials are spread widely on social media to create a sense of crisis and to incite hatred.