Pakistan News
Diaspora Dissent: Not for Sale
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In an unprecedented wave of political activism, overseas Pakistanis—particularly staunch supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Imran Khan—have mounted a global campaign of defiance against the current Pakistani regime. From London to New York, Toronto to Berlin, these protests have transcended symbolic gestures to become aggressive assertions of political will. The Pakistani diaspora has turned global cities into battlegrounds for democratic accountability, branding those allegedly involved in electoral manipulation as persona non grata.
These protests reflect deep-rooted disillusionment among overseas Pakistanis toward what they perceive as a civilian-military coup. The Form-45 regime, symbolizing electoral rigging, has become a rallying cry for expatriates who feel democracy has been hijacked. These protests have evolved into personal confrontations, with Pakistani officials—civilian and military alike—being heckled and humiliated abroad.
Overseas Pakistanis have effectively shrunk the world for those they hold responsible for undermining democracy. These individuals can no longer travel abroad in peace—they are harassed mid-flight, greeted at airports with derogatory slogans, and often followed to their hotels or residences. Even during public events, speakers perceived to be aligned with the alleged illegitimate regime are frequently interrupted, insulted, and publicly shamed.
In response, the government resorted to repressive measures. The relatives of vocal expatriate Pakistanis were reportedly detained and mistreated while the expatriates were made to listen via phone—an intimidation tactic designed to silence dissent. Passports and national identity cards of active overseas Pakistanis were suspended, barring them from returning home. Laws were swiftly enacted to curtail digital speech, with social media platforms blocked and internet speeds deliberately slowed during key protests.
These coercive actions were accompanied by an expansive state-led propaganda campaign. The Ministry of Information, effectively reduced to an auxiliary arm of the ISPR, was mobilized to downplay protests, suppress online dissent, and discredit critics. Despite these efforts, the resolve of the overseas Pakistani community remained unshaken. Rather than diminishing in strength, the protests gained momentum and international visibility.
Realizing that intimidation alone was failing, the state pivoted toward engagement. Delegations comprising serving and retired generals and senior diplomats were dispatched to diaspora hubs to appeal for support. These officials implored expatriates to differentiate between state institutions and individual actions, warning that criticism of the army was tantamount to treason. The government’s outreach primarily targeted embassy-affiliated individuals—those who maintain close ties with diplomats in return for favors and visibility. These individuals, often viewed with suspicion by the broader community, lack genuine grassroots legitimacy and are regarded as mouthpieces rather than representatives.
These select figures were later included in choreographed trips to Pakistan, where they were feted with VIP treatment and praised as “the lifeline of Pakistan.” These public relations exercises, orchestrated and funded by ISPR, were designed to create the illusion of overseas unity and support. Simultaneously, the government rolled out investment incentives, preferential immigration procedures, and tax breaks for expatriates—misguided attempts to purchase silence.
But this strategy ignored a fundamental truth: overseas Pakistanis are not fighting for personal gains. They are fighting for the soul of their nation. Their commitment stems from a deep emotional bond with their homeland and a belief in democratic values, human dignity, and national justice.
Their agitation against the army was fueled by the perception that the civilian government, judiciary, and parliament have been rendered powerless, acting only to bolster military dominance and implement the vision of General Syed Asim Munir. His leadership has come to symbolize the transformation of Pakistan into a “hard state”—a nation where dissent is not debated but disciplined.
General Asim Munir’s thinking pattern to deal with dissent follows a strict, militarized doctrine. He sees public demonstrations, political activism, and journalistic inquiry not as democratic exercises but as threats to national cohesion. His public statements reflect an unwavering commitment to rooting out what he describes as “internal enemies,” “foreign agents,” or “facilitators” of chaos. Whether dealing with Baloch separatists, the TTP, or dissenters on social media, his response framework remains rooted in control through surveillance, suppression, and force.
This worldview—conditioned by years of counterinsurgency and military strategy—is ill-suited for civilian governance. In his formulation, peace is imposed, not negotiated; order is enforced, not earned. In practice, this leads to silencing voices, curbing freedoms, and criminalizing criticism. Such a posture may be effective in battlefield logistics, but when applied to civilians, it risks alienating populations and undermining the very fabric of the nation.
This hardline approach overlooks the methods used by progressive and democratic nations to resolve internal conflict: dialogue, negotiation, institutional reform, and civic inclusion. When citizens are treated with respect and their voices are heard, peace prevails. But when fear becomes a tool of governance, nations suffer: capital and talent flee, innovation dries up, and cultural expression is stifled. Pakistan, unfortunately, is heading down that path.
This internal repression mirrors a broader national crisis. In Balochistan, enforced disappearances and heavy-handed military tactics have ignited a rebellion. Rather than addressing long-standing grievances, the state continues to respond with brute force. In Sindh, tensions over water rights have deepened provincial resentment, with no meaningful resolution in sight. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is once again battling a surge in terrorism, while Punjab reels from rampant political victimization of PTI leaders, supporters, and even apolitical citizens.
The voice of the overseas Pakistani community is, therefore, not a disruption—it is an extension of this national cry for justice. Their message is consistent: without restoring electoral integrity, releasing political prisoners, and withdrawing military interference from civil governance, Pakistan will remain unstable both at home and abroad.
The solution lies not in suppression but in reform. The judiciary must be independent, political plurality must be safeguarded, and the media must be allowed to operate freely. Cosmetic PR campaigns cannot mask the truth, and the diaspora sees through them. Their activism is not for show; it is a principled stand for a democratic Pakistan.
No amount of choreographed visits, orchestrated praise, or economic incentives will pacify a politically awakened diaspora. The state has gravely misjudged their conviction. These Pakistanis abroad are not mere remittance-senders—they are informed, connected, and resolute agents of change.
The path forward requires a national reckoning. Real reform must replace propaganda. Justice must replace intimidation. Dialogue must replace threats. Until that transformation occurs, the voice of the overseas Pakistani community—amplified across borders and continents—will continue to grow louder. And that voice, forged in conviction and steeped in truth, cannot and will not be silenced.
Pakistan News
Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.
Pakistan News
Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow
Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.
Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/
Pakistan News
Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed
Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.
Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.
Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.
The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.
The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.
Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.
Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.
In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.
The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.
The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.
It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”
The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.
Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News8 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
