Pakistan News
Democratic vs. Military Decision-Making
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 : Pakistan’s decision-making process is heavily dominated by military leadership, rendering civilian politicians mere figureheads without real authority. Despite holding official positions, they lack the autonomy to implement policies independently, as the final say rests with the military establishment. This power-centric governance model has plunged the country into political and economic chaos, fueling regional alienation and insurgencies, particularly in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Balochistan, in particular, has faced insurgency for decades, and rather than seeing a decline, the conflict has intensified due to the systemic exclusion of genuine Baloch leadership from decision-making processes. This exclusion, coupled with the province’s chronic deprivation, including a lack of education, widespread unemployment, and entrenched poverty, has further alienated its people. As the state weakens, the military’s grip on Balochistan is loosening, while Khyber Pakhtunkhwa faces a similar trajectory, with increasing instability and growing public dissent.
Faced with this deteriorating situation, politicians have repeatedly urged the military leadership to take corrective measures. They have called for steps to address political alienation, growing separatist sentiments, and widespread resentment toward the armed forces. Rather than proactively taking initiatives to integrate disgruntled elements into the mainstream, even the president, prime minister, federal ministers, and parliamentarians have found themselves publicly appealing to military leadership, reflecting their sense of helplessness.
However, the military remains fixated on securing national resources rather than focusing on governance reforms or public welfare. This widening gulf between civilian and military decision-making rendered the political leaders, regardless of their intentions, powerless, and their proposals hold no weight making the governance ineffective, with the democratic process reduced to a mere façade.
Civilian decision-making traditionally follows a structured and institutionalized process designed to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and accountability. Initially, issues affecting multiple provinces are identified clearly and subjected to comprehensive feasibility studies to evaluate economic, social, environmental, and political impacts. Extensive consultations with stakeholders—including provincial governments, subject matter experts, civil society organizations, and representatives from affected communities—then take place. These steps help ensure that diverse perspectives inform policy formulation.
Subsequently, identified issues are deliberated within the Council of Common Interests (CCI), where provincial heads strive to achieve consensus-based solutions. Following CCI deliberations, proposed policies or initiatives are opened to public scrutiny through structured hearings or open forums, allowing for direct feedback and community engagement. Once public input is incorporated, detailed policy frameworks are drafted and undergo formal legislative scrutiny, involving parliamentary debate, amendments, and voting. During implementation, continuous monitoring and periodic evaluations ensure policies remain effective and aligned with national welfare, reinforcing governance in a diverse and complex country like Pakistan.
In stark contrast, military decision-making operates on a rigid and centralized model, shrouded in secrecy and primarily driven by hierarchy and discipline, with the primary objective to identify the enemy and neutralize it, whether civilian or military. Once a decision is finalized by the army chief or top military commanders, it is communicated through clear, concise orders, and swiftly executed without extensive deliberation or civilian engagement or caring for consequences.
This contrast between civilian and military governance underscores why democratic nations flourish. Countries with strong democratic institutions prioritize long-term stability, economic progress, and national development. India serves as a prime example. Since independence, it has upheld civilian supremacy, allowing democratic institutions to mature and drive sustained economic growth. Despite facing numerous internal challenges, India has emerged as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies and is poised to become the third-largest global economy in a year or two. This success highlights the effectiveness of democratic governance, where elected representatives prioritize public welfare over institutional control.
Pakistan’s trajectory, however, has been the opposite. The military’s repeated interventions have crippled democratic institutions, rendering governance ineffective. The constitution is frequently bypassed, parliament remains weak, the judiciary is undermined, and the media is suppressed. The military has turned state institutions against the public, leading to widespread resentment. While it justifies its control by branding civilian leadership as corrupt, incompetent, and disloyal, its own policies have pushed the country toward economic collapse and social unrest.
Balochistan, once considered a region of unrest, has now reached a boiling point. The military’s continued repression and exclusion of local leaders have radicalized large segments of the population. The Baloch insurgency, which once operated on the fringes, now enjoys widespread local support, turning the armed forces into the primary adversary in the eyes of many Baloch citizens. Similar trends are emerging in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where militant groups have gained ground due to the army’s counterproductive policies.
Now, Punjab—historically the military’s stronghold—is also experiencing disillusionment. The army’s policies, particularly corporate land acquisitions, water mismanagement, and suppression of political voices, have alienated large sections of the Punjabi population. The military’s controversial decision to divert water from the Indus River Basin to irrigate corporate farmland in southern Punjab has further fueled deep resentment in the province of Sindh, which had termed it a stealing of their rightful water share. For the first time, a significant portion of Punjab and Sindh’s populations are beginning to view the army as a self-serving institution rather than a national protector.
Internationally, Pakistan’s foreign policy has also suffered due to the military’s dominance. Unlike its neighbors, which maintain stable and mutually beneficial relationships, Pakistan has strained ties with almost all bordering nations except China. Relations with India remain hostile, ties with Afghanistan are marred by conflict, and even Iran has grown wary of Pakistan’s policies. This diplomatic isolation is largely a result of military-driven foreign policy, which prioritizes security concerns over economic and diplomatic engagement.
True progress can only be achieved when governance is based on civilian supremacy, rule of law, and democratic accountability. Pakistan’s future remains bleak unless genuine democratic reforms are implemented. Free and fair elections, restoration of parliamentary authority, and judicial independence are critical to reversing the country’s downward spiral. If the current trajectory persists, Pakistan will continue to suffer economic stagnation, political instability, and social unrest.
The nation stands at a crossroads: either it embraces democratic governance and paves the way for prosperity, or it remains trapped in a cycle of military dominance and perpetual crisis. The choice will determine whether Pakistan reclaims its potential or continues to dig its own grave.
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 News9 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?
