War hysteria: Insanity disguised as patriotism

​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

Once again, the debate over the creation of new provinces has surfaced in Pakistan. In every political era, the issue is revived in one form or another. This time, however, there appears to be a growing push for creating additional provinces out of almost every major province in the country. The strongest argument being put forward is that Pakistan’s population was around 70 million in 1972, whereas it has now grown to more than three times that figure. Therefore, it is argued, new provinces have become necessary for administrative convenience. At first glance, this argument may sound convincing. But the real question is: can all of Pakistan’s problems be solved simply by creating new provinces? If population growth alone is a sufficient reason for creating new provinces, then why have all major countries in the world not followed the same path? The real issue is not the number of provinces but the quality of governance, equitable distribution of resources, an empowered local government system, transparent accountability and an effective administrative structure. When the basic system is weak, changing the map does not make the problems disappear. What is particularly concerning is that Punjab appears to be the main target of this debate. At different times, proposals have emerged for a separate South Punjab, Central Punjab and even further divisions. It seems that with every political season, Punjab becomes the centre of the debate over provincial division. This has understandably created a feeling among many Punjabis that the issue may not be merely about administrative reform, but could also weaken Punjab’s historical, cultural and political identity. Punjab is not merely another province. It is one of the strong pillars of Pakistan’s ideological, historical and economic foundations. The land played an important role in the Pakistan Movement, made enormous sacrifices for the defence of the country, strengthened Pakistan’s agriculture and industry, and has always played a key role in the national economy. Repeatedly dragging such a province into a debate over division is neither appropriate nor in the national interest. Those advocating new provinces speak extensively about administrative convenience, but remain largely silent about the financial consequences. Has anyone explained to the public that every new province would require a new governor, chief minister, cabinet, provincial assembly, speaker, deputy speaker, secretariat and numerous government departments? There would also be hundreds of new government positions, official residences, vehicle fleets, security arrangements, protocol and countless other administrative expenses. All of this would require billions of rupees. And ultimately, that money would not come from some separate source. It would come from the taxpayers and the public exchequer. Pakistan is already facing one of the most serious economic challenges in its history. The burden of domestic and external debt remains enormous, while a substantial portion of the national budget is spent every year on debt servicing and interest payments. The country continues to rely on programmes supported by the IMF and other international financial institutions, while ordinary citizens struggle with inflation, unemployment and rising electricity, gas and petrol prices. In such circumstances, would creating new provinces and expanding the size of the ruling and administrative machinery really be an act of national wisdom? Or would it simply place another burden on already stretched national resources? If the genuine objective is to serve the people, the existing system should first be made more effective. Local governments must be empowered, district administrations should be given adequate financial and administrative authority, bureaucratic reforms should be introduced, corruption must be tackled and the equitable distribution of resources must be ensured. If the existing system is not functioning to its full potential, how can simply drawing new boundaries across the map transform the lives of ordinary citizens? The issue of dividing Punjab is not merely administrative. It is also a question of identity. Punjab’s language, culture and heritage have already not received the level of official patronage and protection they deserve. If the geographical unity of Punjab is repeatedly subjected to calls for division, it could further weaken its cultural and historical identity. There is another important question: if population is to be the basis for creating new provinces, why should the same principle not be applied uniformly across the country? Will this criterion apply equally to every province, or is Punjab being singled out? National decisions should not be driven by political expediency. They should be based on constitutional requirements, the national interest and broad public consensus. In my view, Pakistan needs a new economic vision, stronger institutions, a fairer system of justice, quality education, better healthcare, greater employment opportunities and effective local governments far more urgently than it needs new provinces. People do not want more rulers; they want better governance. They do not need more official protocol; they need affordable food, quality healthcare, good education and decent employment. As a Pakistani, a journalist and a Punjabi, I believe that dividing Punjab is not in the national interest. Its unity, historical importance and cultural identity should be protected. If we genuinely want to strengthen Pakistan, we should strengthen the system rather than divide provinces, improve governance rather than expand administrative structures, and reduce the problems faced by ordinary citizens instead of placing an additional financial burden on them. The division of Punjab is, in my view, unacceptable. A strong Punjab contributes to a strong Pakistan, and a strong Pakistan should be our shared destination.

The 276th Corps Commanders’ Conference, chaired by Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, brought together the Pakistan Army’s senior corps commanders to deliberate on national security, sovereignty, and the country’s complex geopolitical environment. The conference commenced with a Fateha for the Shuhada of the Armed Forces, personnel of the Law Enforcement Agencies, and civilians who lost their lives in the fight against terrorism, reaffirming the significance of their sacrifices for Pakistan’s security, unity, and resilience. The commanders also paid tribute to the fallen heroes and their families, acknowledging their enduring contributions to the nation. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, serving as Chief of Army Staff and Chief of Defence Forces, led the conference with a focus on national security and counterterrorism. His leadership has been appreciated by the military and the country’s political leadership, including the President and the Prime Minister, while also is a source of national pride. The conference highlighted ongoing efforts by the military leadership to strengthen Pakistan against internal and external threats and stated that these efforts have also received recognition from international leaders and diplomats for promoting regional diplomacy, peace, and stability, contributing to Pakistan’s international standing and diplomatic influence. A primary and dominating focus of the 276th Corps Commanders’ Conference was the comprehensive and exhaustive review of the country’s prevailing and evolving security environment. The forum expressed extremely serious and grave concerns over the continued and blatant use of territory that remains under the effective control of the Afghan Taliban regime. This territory, according to the military leadership, is being actively utilized by Indian-sponsored terrorist groups to orchestrate and launch attacks inside Pakistani territory. These groups, which include the notorious Fitna al Khawarij and the newly emerged Fitna al Hindustan, are allegedly being used as proxies to destabilize Pakistan. The commanders presented detailed intelligence briefings that outlined the specific routes, hideouts, and funding mechanisms being employed by these hostile elements. It was made unequivocally clear that lasting peace and sustainable stability in the entire South Asian region are contingent upon the immediate and effective prevention of the misuse of Afghan soil by these terrorist proxies. The conference affirmed with absolute clarity that the Afghan Taliban regime bears a direct, non-negotiable, and primary responsibility for ensuring that its territory is not used as a launchpad for attacks against its neighbors, particularly Pakistan. In a significant and indeed rare declaration that sent a strong message to the region, the forum reaffirmed Pakistan’s unequivocal and inherent right to defend its people against the menace of terrorism. The leadership announced that intelligence-based operations, commonly known as IBOs, would continue with even greater intensity and precision against these threats. Under the ambit of Operation Ghazab-lil-Haq, which is a comprehensive and aggressive counter-terrorism campaign, these operations will be meticulously planned and executed to target terrorist networks that are operating from Afghan territory. This signaled a clear and firm posture that Pakistan is prepared to take the fight to the enemy’s sanctuaries if diplomatic efforts and bilateral agreements continue to be violated with impunity. Beyond the realm of kinetic military operations and direct firefights, the conference underscored the absolutely critical importance of adopting a holistic, multi-dimensional, and comprehensive approach to the problem of counter-terrorism. The senior commanders stressed the immediate and pressing need for putting in place robust, transparent, and effective governance structures in the restive and formerly tribal areas of the country. These structures must be directed towards the rapid and efficient delivery of public services and the implementation of welfare initiatives. The objective is to win the hearts and minds of the local population, who have long been caught in the crossfire between the state and militant groups. The forum highlighted the urgent and indispensable need to dismantle the nefarious and symbiotic nexus that exists between terrorism and organized crime. This criminal-terrorist syndicate, they said, continues to thrive under the patronage of certain vested political interests and corrupt elements within the system. This acknowledgment is crucial because it recognizes the complex reality that sustainable peace cannot be achieved through military means alone, no matter how effective they are. It requires effective governance, the speedy completion of socioeconomic development projects, the establishment of public confidence in the integrity of state institutions, and the provision of swift justice. The conference’s heavy emphasis on this integrated and multi-pronged strategy reflects a mature, sophisticated, and nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of modern conflict. It also highlights the military’s recognition that a purely kinetic approach is insufficient and that a comprehensive national response, involving all pillars of the state and society, is the only viable path to lasting peace and prosperity. The forum also took very careful and deliberate note of the rapidly evolving strategic landscape, particularly the increased and sophisticated reliance on externally supported hybrid warfare and disinformation campaigns. This was identified as a new and dangerous front in the ongoing conflict. Following what it described as Pakistan’s comprehensive and decisive defeat inflicted on the enemy in the Mark-e-Haq, which was a major military and ideological battle, hostile elements have been forced to shift their tactics. These adversarial actors are now attempting to destabilize Pakistan through more insidious means. These include the widespread propagation of false propaganda, the state-sponsored financing of local proxies and militant groups, the manipulation of social media to create ethnic and sectarian divides, and the persistent efforts to sow discord among the different segments of Pakistani society. The conference strongly condemned all such forms of state-supported financing, facilitation, or sponsorship of subversive proxies. It underscored that any attempts to use these hybrid means to create internal unrest and destabilize the country would be countered with strategic clarity, institutional resilience, and an unshakeable firm resolve. This robust and proactive stance against hybrid warfare demonstrates the military’s acute awareness of the non-traditional threats facing the nation. It also shows the military’s preparedness to counter them effectively using both defensive and offensive measures in the information and cyber domains. By publicly recognizing and clearly articulating

Pakistan has a peculiar relationship with workplace merit. We talk about it constantly. Government departments are criticised for delaying promotions. Corporations are questioned over favouritism. Universities are urged to reward academic performance. Employers are told to retain talent. Media organisations routinely expose nepotism, extensions, political appointments and institutional injustice. But there is a question that is rarely asked: Do the organisations making these arguments follow the same standards inside their own walls? The question is particularly relevant to Pakistan’s media industry. Newspapers and television channels have considerable influence over how society understands fairness at work. They report on workers denied promotions, bureaucrats given extensions, senior officials superseded and institutions accused of favouritism. But journalism cannot demand accountability from everyone else while exempting itself from scrutiny. That is where the conversation around employee retention, promotions and extensions becomes uncomfortable. The Extension That Blocks an Entire Career Ladder In any hierarchical organisation, one senior position can determine the careers of dozens of people below it. When a person occupying a senior position retires, the organisation has several choices. It can promote someone from within. It can recruit externally. It can restructure the position. Or, where there is a genuine institutional requirement, it can retain the individual for a defined period. The problem begins when an exception becomes a culture. A six-month extension becomes another year. A temporary arrangement becomes a permanent arrangement. A retired employee is brought back. Another extension follows. Meanwhile, people below continue waiting. For them, the issue is not merely that someone has been allowed to continue working. It is that their own careers may have been placed on hold to accommodate someone else’s continued career. That distinction is often ignored in Pakistan. Even Dawn Has Written About This Problem Dawn itself has been among the publications highlighting the damage caused by prolonged temporary arrangements. In a May 2026 editorial titled “Ad hoc culture,” Dawn criticised the practice of keeping people in higher positions through prolonged temporary arrangements, noting that such practices can leave employees without formal promotion, financial benefits or recognition of seniority. It specifically highlighted the frustration of employees whose seniority is bypassed. That position is difficult to disagree with. In fact, it is precisely the position that responsible journalism should take. But it also raises a more uncomfortable question: What happens when the same principles are applied to the media organisations themselves? The Dawn Question Dawn has long presented itself as an institution committed to professional journalism, institutional accountability and workers’ rights. Its pages have repeatedly carried arguments in favour of merit-based promotions and against prolonged ad-hoc arrangements. A January 2026 Dawn editorial page contribution on academic promotions, for example, argued that delayed promotions erode meritocracy, demotivate employees and can drive talented professionals towards private institutions or overseas opportunities. In another recent editorial, Dawn argued that prolonged temporary arrangements can stagnate careers and deprive employees of financial progression and recognition. These are sound principles. But principles become meaningful only when they are applied consistently. And this is where, based on my own knowledge of the organisation, an uncomfortable contradiction deserves examination. Dawn’s senior management structure has itself seen prolonged extensions, while retired managers have, according to my knowledge, been brought back into employment in Lahore and elsewhere. That raises a straightforward question: If retaining retired or extended senior personnel is justified by institutional necessity, why should the same practice be criticised when governments or other organisations do it? And if prolonged extensions are capable of blocking the careers of younger employees in government departments, why would the principle suddenly cease to apply inside a media organisation? This is not an argument against experience. Nor is it an argument that every retired employee should automatically be removed. Experience has value. Institutional memory has value. A highly experienced editor or manager can be extremely difficult to replace. But institutional value cannot become a permanent justification for blocking succession. Fifteen Years Is a Long Time in Any Profession The question becomes even more significant when a senior position remains occupied for an exceptionally long period. From my own knowledge of Dawn, its editor has remained in the position for nearly 15 years through extensions. Again, the question is not whether an individual is competent. The question is whether an institution that advocates professional advancement should also have a mechanism for developing and promoting the next generation of leadership. Fifteen years is enough time for an entire generation of journalists to enter an organisation, build careers, become senior reporters, become editors and eventually expect to take on greater responsibility. If the top positions remain occupied indefinitely, where does that generation go? There is a very real distinction between retaining talent and preventing succession. A healthy institution must know the difference. The Supreme Court Has Now Entered This Conversation This is no longer merely an HR theory. Pakistan’s Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue in remarkably strong terms. In January 2026, the court ruled that government departments could not use administrative inefficiency and procedural delays as an excuse for denying employees timely consideration for promotion. It held that promotion is connected to merit, performance and operational requirements, and said employees should not suffer because a department failed to convene promotion committees or relied excessively on acting arrangements. Four months later, in May 2026, the Supreme Court went further. It held that prolonged ad-hoc, look-after, current-charge, acting-charge and additional-charge arrangements can amount to exploitation. The case involved a Pakistan Railways employee who had performed duties of a higher post for nearly eight years before receiving regular promotion. The court’s reasoning is important because it moves the debate beyond bureaucratic procedure. It is about human beings and their careers. A person who spends years doing higher-level work without receiving corresponding recognition, seniority or financial benefits is not merely dealing with an administrative inconvenience. Their career is being affected. What Happens to the Person Waiting Below? This is the part of the Pakistani workplace debate we often ignore. We discuss the person

Decolonization is often thought of as the process through which colonized nations became free from foreign rule. Flags changed, colonial governments were removed and national governments were. Political independence was officially given back. Yet political freedom did not always mean intellectual, cultural, linguistic or psychological freedom. In places that were once colonized the structures of colonialism stayed long after the colonizers left. These structures continued through education systems, languages, cultural expectations, literary standards, social organizations, economic systems, media portrayals and inherited ideas about what’s considered knowledge, civilization, intelligence, progress and even beauty. This ongoing influence brings up a question: Can a country really be independent if its people still judge themselves using the intellectual standards of their former rulers? The point of this article is that political decolonization is not complete without the decolonization of the mind. Decolonizing minds does not mean rejecting everything from the West. Does it mean replacing one way of thinking with another? Instead it means looking at the systems of knowledge that have been passed down, finding voices that have been ignored, acknowledging indigenous ways of thinking, challenging language and culture hierarchies and building confidence to create knowledge based on one’s own history and society while still being open to global ideas. The idea of the “colonization of the mind” is very important because colonialism was not about politics or money. Colonial powers often tried to show that their language, literature, religion, schools, social systems and ways of knowing were better than those of the people they ruled. The people who were colonized were. Sometimes forced to believe that the culture of the colonizers was modern while their own traditions were backward. The result was a system where the colonized person started to see themselves through the eyes of the people who ruled them. Frantz Fanon in his books about the psychology of colonialism showed how colonial control gets into the minds of the people who are oppressed. So colonialism does not end because the person in charge leaves. Its biggest success happens when its ideas and beliefs become part of the colonized person’s thinking. The mental impact of colonialism is one of its lasting effects. A colonized mind may feel ashamed of its language, accent, literature, clothing, history, traditions and ways of thinking. It may think that foreign things are advanced and local things are outdated. A student may think that an English source is automatically more important than a source from their country that is just as good. A university may value ideas from Europe or North America while not giving attention to ideas from Africa, Asia, Latin America or native communities. A society may celebrate culture while thinking its own traditions are old-fashioned. These views are not always because of individuals; they are often the result of historical systems that have taught generations what to admire and what to ignore. Education is one of the important places where decolonization needs to happen. Colonial education systems were often built not to help the people they ruled but to serve the needs of the rulers. Even though schools today have changed a lot, many still repeat the ways of knowing. The lessons may focus on history, Western books, European philosophy and Western science while giving little space to local knowledge and traditions. This does not mean that Shakespeare, Aristotle, Kant, Newton or other great thinkers should be removed from the lessons. That would only replace one kind of exclusion with another. The real goal is to have balance. Students should read Shakespeare along with writers from South Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and other areas. They should study philosophy while also learning about philosophies from Asia, Africa, the Islamic world and native communities. The purpose is not to get rid of knowledge but to make the learning more wide. A decolonized class asks tough questions about who has been allowed to create knowledge. Who writes history? Who is considered important in literature? Whose language is seen as academic? Whose knowledge is seen as scientific? Whose view defines life? These questions show the politics of knowledge. Knowledge is never made in a vacuum. Schools, universities, publishers, governments, colonial systems and international groups have often decided which types of knowledge are accepted. Decolonization means we have to see these systems and think about them carefully or just accept them as better. Language is possibly the obvious place where intellectual decolonization needs to happen. Colonial languages like English, French, Spanish and Portuguese still hold positions in many countries that used to be colonized. English in particular has become a language and gives access to international learning, technology, jobs, diplomacy and higher education. So the argument for decolonization can’t just be to stop using English. That would be unrealistic. Might even hurt students who need to speak English to communicate internationally. A better argument is to have languages. English should be seen as one tool, not a measure of smartness, civilization or social value. In countries where many languages are spoken, local languages carry histories, memories, identities, oral stories, cultural knowledge and different ways of looking at the world. When a language is pushed aside an entire system of thinking can be weakened. Losing a language is not just losing words; it can also lose knowledge about nature, stories, cultural memory, native words and community identity. Decolonizing the mind means people need to see that speaking a language does not make someone less educated and speaking English does not automatically make someone more intelligent. Knowing a language and being smart are things. A person can be very educated and still express themselves best in a language. At the time, decolonization should not make people dislike English or other global languages. English has been taken by writers, scholars, activists and thinkers from countries and used to show their own experiences. Writers like Chinua Achebe, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, Salman Rushdie, Derek Walcott, Wole Soyinka and many others have shown ways to use colonial languages. Their work shows that language can

Every political leader is eventually defined not by promises but by performance under pressure. Pakistan has faced repeated political, economic and administrative challenges over the decades, and each crisis has demanded leadership with experience, patience and the ability to find solutions. In my view, Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif has established himself as a leader who understands governance, negotiation and crisis management. His journey from grassroots politics to becoming Chief Minister of Punjab and later Prime Minister of Pakistan has given him decades of experience in dealing with the practical realities of administration and public service. His reputation as a hands-on administrator comes from his approach to governance. During his tenure as Chief Minister of Punjab, he focused on reforms in education, healthcare, infrastructure and public service delivery. His fast-paced working style earned him the title “Shehbaz Speed”, reflecting his emphasis on implementation and results. I first met Shehbaz Sharif in 2005 at his flat in Avenfield House, London. Over the past twenty-one years, I have had the opportunity to observe his political journey closely. While journalism requires independence and critical analysis, personal observation also provides a unique perspective. Throughout this period, his commitment to Pakistan and his passion for public service have remained evident. During his years as Chief Minister of Punjab, I witnessed his determination to create opportunities for young Pakistanis, particularly through education reforms. Initiatives such as the Punjab Education Endowment Fund, Danish Schools, merit-based scholarships, laptop schemes for students and stipends for high achievers aimed to expand access to quality education. The policy of sending high-performing students abroad, including to the United Kingdom and other European countries, was designed to broaden their vision and expose them to international standards. These initiatives reflected a belief that education is the foundation for long-term national development. His reforms in healthcare and infrastructure also became a significant part of his governance record. Supporters believe that his focus on improving public services in Punjab provided a model of administrative delivery that he later brought to the national level. As Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif has faced one of the most challenging periods in Pakistan’s recent history. His supporters credit his government with helping stabilise the economy, restoring international engagement and steering Pakistan away from the risk of a deeper financial crisis. Although major economic challenges remain, they argue that difficult decisions have helped create a more stable foundation. One of the notable features of the current political landscape has been cooperation between state institutions. Supporters view the working relationship between Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir as an example of institutional coordination aimed at achieving national stability and economic progress. Pakistan has also sought a more active role on the international stage. Supporters point to its diplomatic engagement, including efforts to promote dialogue during periods of international tension, as evidence that Pakistan continues to play an important role in regional and global affairs. In my view, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to steer Pakistan through difficult circumstances. Based on my observations over more than two decades, I believe he has faced major challenges before and has the experience and determination to overcome them again. His strength lies in his understanding of governance, his ability to negotiate with different stakeholders and his focus on delivery. Whether dealing with political partners, institutions or international partners, his supporters believe his experience gives him an advantage in managing complex situations. However, Pakistan’s journey towards prosperity requires continued reforms. Economic pressures, inflation, unemployment and governance challenges remain serious concerns. The next phase must focus on ensuring that national progress translates into improvements in the daily lives of ordinary citizens. In my opinion, Pakistan also needs stronger administrative decentralisation. Whether through new provinces or more empowered administrative units, decision-making should be brought closer to the people. More effective local governance can improve accountability, strengthen public services and accelerate development across the country. Pakistan now needs consistency, stability and a collective commitment from all stakeholders. Political differences are part of democracy, but national progress requires institutions to work together and focus on the common goal of prosperity. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has built his political career around crisis management and public administration. His greatest challenge now is to convert stability into sustainable growth and lasting development. History will ultimately judge every leader by the impact they leave behind. For Shehbaz Sharif, the opportunity remains to transform difficult times into a period of economic recovery, institutional strength and a stronger Pakistan for future generations.