Connect with us

Pakistan News

Do not raise your head

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 : This perhaps is the unwritten rule of the Deep State that has held Pakistan in a tight grip since its very inception. This command does not apply only to the political elite but extends to every institution and stakeholder of the state—civilian or military, public or private, individual or collective. It ensures that all organs of the state—judiciary, bureaucracy, legislature, media, and the business community—remain subservient to its control. Dignity and independence are liabilities; unquestioning obedience is the only accepted virtue.
Having served closely in both media and civil service, and having traveled and worked with Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, and Chief Ministers—especially in Balochistan—I have witnessed firsthand that no government, no leader, and no public figure survives politically unless they surrender completely to the dictates of the Deep State. Those who dare to raise their heads or express a vision independent of establishment control are swiftly removed, disgraced, or eliminated. Political transitions, cabinet reshuffles, judicial rulings, and even corporate growth trajectories are carefully managed by forces outside the constitutional framework.
In Balochistan, this power dynamic is especially severe. Leaders such as Sardar Akhtar Mengal and Nawab Akbar Bugti, who tried to govern their province on their own terms, were either ousted, assassinated, or politically isolated. Successive provincial governments have rarely completed their terms. They were either pressured to resign or removed by engineering political turmoil under establishment oversight. This trend clearly reflects that governance in Balochistan has less to do with performance and more to do with submission to invisible commands.
The Deep State’s reach extends well beyond politics and into the heart of Pakistan’s economy. No industrialist, real estate developer, banker, manufacturer, or transporter can operate independently if their business model threatens or competes with the economic interests of the establishment. The military’s corporate empire—estimated to be worth over $40 billion—controls banks, insurance firms, cement and cereal plants, schools, agricultural estates, and retail chains. Businesses that pose a threat or refuse to align with these interests are often brought to heel through financial strangulation, legal troubles, or forced compliance. This coercion stifles competition, innovation, and fair enterprise. Economic policy is crafted not with national development in mind but to favor the monopolistic hold of military-run conglomerates.
Pakistan’s political history reinforces this power structure. The military has ruled directly for nearly half of the country’s existence—Ayub Khan (1958–69), Yahya Khan (1969–71), Zia-ul-Haq (1977–88), and Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008)—and indirectly during most of the remaining years through engineered coalitions and installed puppets. Civilian leaders such as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, and Imran Khan were removed, not for incompetence or corruption, but for crossing the invisible red lines laid down by the establishment.
Bhutto was hanged after a farcical trial. Benazir was dismissed twice and later assassinated under mysterious circumstances. Nawaz Sharif was disqualified thrice; despite popular support, he never completed a term. And Imran Khan, brought into power in 2018 by the military itself, was discarded when he sought to assert independence in foreign and domestic policy.
In the 2024 general elections, despite being widely believed to hold majority public support, his mandate was brazenly stolen using a combination of judicial verdicts, election commission maneuvering, and administrative suppression. He remains incarcerated, while political stooges have been conveniently installed to rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere.
The consequences of this unchecked power are now evident across every sector of national life. Pakistan has alienated all of its neighbors—India, Afghanistan, and Iran—due to erratic policies and border management failures. The major global powers are wary of investing or engaging with Pakistan, citing political instability and military overreach. Foreign direct investment has dried up. The entire country is in the grip of resurgent terrorism. Extremist violence, once restricted to tribal areas, has now spread to major cities, disrupting daily life and national morale.
Unlike the past, when certain provinces viewed the military favorably, today the people across Pakistan—Punjab, Sindh, KP, and Balochistan—are increasingly opposed to military dominance and are openly challenging the high-handedness of the establishment. This nationwide disenchantment is unprecedented.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s borders are insecure and porous. There is rampant cross-border infiltration of terrorists, and smuggling of arms, drugs, money, and fuel has become routine. Billions of dollars spent on building barbed-wire fencing have failed to prevent these illegal flows. The state has lost control over many stretches of the frontier. Law enforcement is either compromised or powerless in the face of this organized criminal enterprise, which often flourishes under patronage.
The country’s prisons are filled with political opponents and dissenters. Those who align themselves with the Deep State are released, rewarded, or protected, while others are brutally persecuted. Due process has collapsed. Journalists, students, politicians, and activists languish in jails without trial. The judiciary, historically a collaborator in legitimizing military coups under the so-called doctrine of necessity, has now become another instrument of suppression, rubber-stamping decisions of convenience.
Pakistan’s economy is in crisis. Inflation is crushing the middle and lower classes. The currency has lost value. The youth are disillusioned, with record levels of emigration by those who see no future in their homeland. The GDP per capita continues to decline. Public services are broken. Institutions are hollowed out.
This is the price of prolonged subjugation to an unelected force. The military, which is supposed to be a branch of the state, has acted as if it is the tree itself. But a branch cannot remain standing if the trunk falls. Unfortunately, this truth has remained unacknowledged since 1947. The Deep State has become an entity that thrives on control and intimidation. Its political engineering, economic monopolies, and suppression of dissent have ensured that Pakistan remains isolated, unstable, and impoverished.
Unless this cycle is broken—either by a people’s revolution or reform from within the ranks of the military itself—the nation will continue to drift toward deeper chaos. There seems little hope from within the existing structure. The choice now lies with those who wield power in the shadows. If they continue to act as the masters of this nation rather than its servants, Pakistan will continue to lose its standing in the community of nations, and its people will remain trapped in despair.
The time for introspection is now. Let wisdom prevail before it is too late. Peace be upon you all.

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