Connect with us

Pakistan News

From Conflict to Consensus

Published

on

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 : There is a near-universal consensus in Pakistan on one key principle: the country must progress. No matter which province or ethnicity one belongs to—Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch, or Pashtun—every citizen yearns for a future where poverty is defeated, dignity is restored, and opportunities abound. This shared national aspiration should have been the most powerful unifying force in Pakistan’s journey toward nationhood. Yet, the question persists: why, despite this common desire, has Pakistan struggled to achieve sustained progress?
The answer lies in the fractured relationship between the state, the Constitution, and the people. The Constitution of Pakistan is not merely a legal document—it is a solemn covenant. It lays down the rights of individuals, the responsibilities of the state, and the mechanisms that bind both in a democratic order. At its heart, the Constitution grants citizens the freedom to dream, to pursue meaningful opportunities, and to live with dignity. But when this foundational contract is ignored or manipulated—whether by state institutions, non-state actors, or even by segments of the political class—societal unrest becomes inevitable.
Justice must form the cornerstone of any thriving nation. Without it, the moral and institutional fabric begins to unravel. When citizens feel deprived of their rightful place in national decision-making or believe that their resources are being unjustly distributed, resentment takes root. These grievances are not abstract—they manifest in broken trust, in mass disenfranchisement, and, ultimately, in resistance against the very institutions meant to serve the people.
This has been particularly evident in regions like Balochistan. It is an uncontested truth that the Baloch people deserve equal access to education, employment, and economic opportunities. They must be seen not as passive recipients of state policy, but as active partners in the development of their land and its vast resources. If some among them have chosen the path of armed resistance, it is not necessarily rebellion—it is, more accurately, a cry of anguish stemming from decades of neglect and perceived injustice. The only sustainable resolution lies in dialogue, inclusion, and the empowerment of local populations. Force has never resolved discontent rooted in genuine grievances.
A similar principle applies to other regions. In Sindh, for example, disputes over water distribution—such as proposed diversions to irrigate the Cholistan desert—must be addressed through transparent dialogue and scientific analysis. These issues should never be approached as top-down decrees from Islamabad but rather as subjects for national consensus. Development must not proceed at the cost of alienation. It must be for the people, by the people—with the people.
At the heart of this debate is the question: who is development for? Infrastructure projects, resource extraction, and even military installations mean little if they do not result in tangible improvements in the lives of citizens—better schools, functional hospitals, dignified housing, and reliable jobs. Development cannot be an instrument of control. It must be a vehicle for upliftment.
Here, we can learn from global examples. China, once grappling with vast poverty and regional inequality, made human development its primary goal. By investing aggressively in education, healthcare, poverty reduction, and skill-building, it laid the groundwork for rapid economic transformation and social cohesion. Pakistan must do the same. We must realize that our greatest national asset is not our minerals, mountains, or motorways—it is our people.
Indeed, when we assess our strengths, it becomes clear that Pakistan’s most valuable resource is its human capital. The second is its institutions. Among these, the Pakistan Armed Forces stand as a powerful guardian of national sovereignty. Their strategic acumen has been demonstrated on multiple occasions—whether in 2019, when they responded decisively to Indian aggression by downing a hostile aircraft, or more recently, when they responded proportionately to Iranian incursions targeting terrorists within Pakistani territory. The message has been clear: Pakistan will defend its sovereignty, but it will do so with discipline and precision.
The enduring strength of our armed forces has served as a deterrent to external threats for decades. Similarly, Pakistan’s civil bureaucracy, though often maligned, is among the most talented in the developing world. However, despite these institutional strengths, the overall system appears paralyzed. Why?
Because we have consistently failed to invest in our people. We have allowed internal divisions to fester instead of resolving them. We have launched projects without community consent. We have designed policies in isolation rather than in partnership with those most affected. This disconnection is eroding not just the legitimacy of governance, but the very cohesion of the state.
For progress to be meaningful, every citizen—regardless of ethnicity or location—must feel that they have a fair stake in the system. When people are heard, respected, and empowered, they become guardians of the state, not agitators against it. It is only through the inclusion of marginalized voices that we can move toward a more democratic, peaceful, and prosperous Pakistan.
To do this, we must reimagine how we govern and whom we serve. We must move beyond centralization and embrace participatory governance. We must institutionalize consultation, particularly for major development projects, so that controversies are addressed before they erupt into crises. We must dismantle the notion that the state knows best, and instead acknowledge that it is the people—especially those closest to the problems—who often hold the best solutions.
We must also end the toxic cycle of exclusion and marginalization. When citizens believe that their voices don’t matter, they retreat from civic life—or worse, they resist the system itself. But when they are brought into the fold, when they see the dividends of peace and participation, they become its most ardent defenders.
Let us think of Pakistan as a tree. For it to grow strong and weather storms, its roots—our people—must be nurtured. Its trunk—our Constitution—must be solid and unyielding. Its branches—our institutions—must be firm yet flexible. And its leaves—our provinces—must flourish in harmony. Only then will future generations inherit a country that is not merely a territory, but a shared, thriving dream.
This is not idealism—it is necessity. We can no longer afford to treat justice as optional, or inclusion as cosmetic. The survival, strength, and success of Pakistan depend on a renewed covenant between the state and its people. A covenant based on dignity, on participation, and above all, on trust.

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow

Published

on

By

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/

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Trending