Pakistan News
The Erosion of Civilian Supremacy
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 recent days, a highly controversial and unprecedented development has taken place involving a top-ranking official of Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), holding a political meeting with influential members of the Pakistani diaspora in Washington, D.C. The event, arranged officially through the Pakistani Embassy’s military wing, has sparked intense debate both within the Pakistani community in the United States and across social media platforms.
What makes this meeting particularly concerning is not only its political nature but also the fact that it was led by an ISI official—a role that, by constitutional design, has no mandate in civilian governance or politics. Attendees included prominent Pakistani Americans—businesspeople, academics, community leaders—who were assured that the grievances of overseas Pakistanis, particularly regarding the political turmoil in Pakistan and the incarceration of Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister and founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), would be addressed. However, this assurance came not from elected representatives or diplomatic officials, but from a figure whose domain is intelligence and national security, not political arbitration.
Following the Washington meeting, a delegation of Pakistani Americans reportedly traveled to Pakistan, where they met senior military leadership, including a high-ranking general. Instead of constructive dialogue, they were met with harsh admonitions. They were criticized for what the military viewed as their inappropriate and damaging criticism of the armed forces abroad. They were accused of maligning the image of the state and acting against the “greater national interest.” The delegation returned empty-handed, with no progress made on their core demands—most notably, the release of Imran Khan.
This entire episode reveals an alarming shift in civil-military dynamics in Pakistan. Historically, the military has maintained significant influence over national policy, but efforts were made—at least superficially—to preserve a civilian face. In this case, the pretense of civilian oversight has been abandoned altogether. What should have been a diplomatic engagement led by elected officials or consular authorities turned into a direct political interaction spearheaded by the military intelligence apparatus.
The ISI has no legal or constitutional mandate to conduct political meetings, particularly abroad, with civilian populations. Matters concerning political grievances, democratic representation, and the justice system should lie exclusively within the purview of the elected civilian government. The ISI has no authority over judicial matters, prison administration, or legislative affairs—yet it is now evidently dictating or at least influencing all these domains.
This development raises profound questions about the legitimacy of the current civilian setup. It reinforces the perception that the government in Islamabad functions merely as a facade for the decisions made by Rawalpindi. The very spirit of democracy and constitutional governance is being undermined. It is not only a betrayal of Pakistan’s constitutional framework but also an insult to the intelligence of the Pakistani public, both at home and abroad.
Worse still is the military’s attempt to suppress overseas criticism. The diaspora, often considered Pakistan’s soft power and economic lifeline due to the billions in annual remittances, is now being warned against speaking out. Diaspora voices, especially in democratic societies like the U.S., have every right to engage in advocacy, raise concerns, and demand justice. To label such engagement as “unpatriotic” or “against national interest” is an authoritarian tactic that contradicts the values of democratic freedom.
This pattern of the military engaging directly with various sectors—students, businesspeople, religious leaders, now even the overseas community—without the involvement of elected officials, reflects a dangerous expansion of its political footprint. If this trend continues unchecked, the distinction between state and government, between military and civilian authority, will be completely obliterated.
It must be emphasized that Pakistan is a constitutional republic. The military, while an essential and respected pillar of the state, must maintain civilian face. Article 243 of the Constitution clearly outlines the role of the armed forces: to defend Pakistan against external threats and ensure its territorial integrity. Nowhere does it suggest that the military can hold political meetings, dictate civilian policy, or influence judicial matters.
In the current context, with Pakistan facing multiple external threats—from tensions with India, border instability with Afghanistan, and flare-ups with Iran—, threats of Donald Trump to Bomb Iran, if it doesn’t enter into negotiation on its nuclear ambition, act of cross border terrorism from Afghanistan and internal separatists movement demand that military remains focused on its core operational duties.
Our armed forces are a national asset. They must be shielded from political controversies so that their credibility remains intact when it is truly needed. The growing politicization of the military not only weakens civilian institutions but also erodes the public’s confidence in the armed forces—a cost Pakistan can ill afford.
It is equally important that Pakistan’s universities, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, professional bodies, and business leaders, when receiving invitations from the military, should insist on a civilian head leading such engagements. The military representatives should play a supplementary role, supporting—rather than substituting—civilian leadership. This approach would help deflect criticism that the military is directly assuming political responsibilities and would prevent the perception that it is defending government actions that fall strictly within the civilian domain and lie outside the military’s constitutional mandate.
A similar approach should be adopted in the case of meetings between foreign dignitaries and the Army Chief. Even if such meetings do occur, they should not be publicized in the media, in order to maintain at least the appearance of civilian leadership at the forefront. Engagements with the Pakistani state must be channeled through legitimate civilian representatives—not shadow figures from the security establishment. Diplomatic norms demand transparency and accountability—qualities sorely lacking in this recent episode.
Moving forward, the military leadership must reassess its approach. Rather than standing in front, it must step back and let the civilian government take the lead in political discourse, policy formulation, and international outreach. If coordination is required, it should happen behind closed doors and within the constitutional framework—not through public forums where military officials act as de facto heads of state.
A pragmatic path forward would involve restoring the primacy of civilian leadership. Let the foreign minister, ambassador, or prime minister engage with the diaspora. Let political grievances be addressed by elected representatives. Let the judiciary operate without interference. Let the media report without intimidation. In this model, the military would still retain its influence—but discreetly and constitutionally—thereby restoring a much-needed balance of power.
If this course correction is not undertaken, Pakistan risks further alienating its diaspora, losing global credibility, and deepening its internal political crisis. Civilian supremacy is not just a constitutional obligation—it is a democratic necessity.
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?
