When we talk about postpartum depression in Pakistan, we are most often talking about it in the language of urban awareness: social media campaigns, clinic waiting rooms, and conversations among women who have access to the internet, education, and at least the possibility of professional support.

But step beyond the city limits into the mountain villages of Gilgit-Baltistan, the remote valleys of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the sparse plains of interior Sindh and southern Punjab, and the picture changes entirely. Here, postpartum depression does not have a name. Here, a mother who is struggling is considered weak, ungrateful, or spiritually lacking. And here, the consequences of that silence are not just emotional. They are physical. They are generational.

Crisis Hidden in Plain Sight

In rural Pakistan, many mothers begin pregnancy already malnourished. Nearly 42 per cent of Pakistani women of reproductive age are anaemic before the physical demand of carrying a child even begins.

The children born into this scarcity carry its weight as well. UNICEF’s 2024 report found that 40 per cent of Pakistani children under five are stunted, their growth and development permanently affected by poor nutrition in their earliest years. In Balochistan and Sindh, the figures rise to 46 per cent and 45 per cent respectively. Pakistan has the third-highest number of stunted children in the world. And the pace of change? Roughly half a per cent improvement per year.

When There Is No Word for What You Feel

In many of Pakistan’s remote communities, there is no vocabulary for postpartum depression. There is no cultural framework that allows for the idea that a new mother can be physically present and emotionally absent at the same time because she is unwell.

Instead, a mother who cannot bond with her baby may be told she is not grateful enough. A mother who weeps without knowing why may be accused of bringing bad energy into the home. A mother who cannot get out of bed may simply be told to pray harder and try more.

These are not cruel communities. They are uninformed ones. And the difference matters, because uninformed communities can learn—but only if someone reaches them.

The Double Weight: Mental Health and Malnutrition Together

Research has established a deeply troubling link between maternal malnutrition and postpartum depression. A body depleted of iron, folate, and omega-3 fatty acids is more vulnerable to the neurological and hormonal disruptions that underlie PPD.

In rural Pakistan, where both conditions are widespread, they compound each other into a cycle that is extraordinarily difficult to break.

A malnourished mother experiencing postpartum depression is less able to care for and feed her infant. Her baby begins life at a disadvantage that follows them through childhood, school, and beyond. Behind both is a mother who needed support she never received.

The Reach Problem

Even when awareness exists, even when a health worker is trained to recognise postpartum depression, the infrastructure to act on that awareness is largely absent.

Pakistan has just 0.19 psychiatrists per 100,000 people—one of the lowest ratios in the world. In rural areas, that translates to roughly one psychiatrist for every one million people.

Only 0.4 per cent of Pakistan’s total health budget is allocated to mental health. The result is a treatment gap of nearly 90 per cent, meaning 9 out of 10 people who need mental health support receive none. For rural mothers, who already face barriers of distance, mobility, and stigma, the gap is even wider.

The View From the Other Side of the Desk

Dr Amina Iftikhar, a psychologist from Lahore, said one pattern she has consistently observed in her clinical work is that women from rural areas present with significantly more severe and longer-untreated cases of postpartum depression compared to those from urban backgrounds.

She recalled a patient, Saira, 24, from Rahim Yar Khan, who was brought to her office in Lahore after a 12-hour bus journey, with her husband describing it as a general checkup. It took three sessions before Saira was able to describe what had actually been happening, she said.

After her delivery, she said she felt nothing—not sadness, but emptiness, as though she were watching her own life from outside it. For eight months, she remained silent, as the only explanation offered by her community was that she was not being grateful enough.

It later emerged that she had been anaemic through both pregnancies, undetected and unaddressed. The postpartum depression and malnutrition were not two separate problems; they were compounding each other, and neither had been named until she reached her clinic.

Saira, Dr Iftikhar said, was not unusual. What was unusual was that she reached treatment at all. Most women in similar situations never do. They remain in their villages, are labelled as weak or spiritually failing, and quietly deteriorate while continuing to care for everyone around them.

She noted that while urban women often present within weeks, rural women come, if they come at all, after the condition has significantly worsened. By that stage, she said, treatment is no longer only about postpartum depression, but about the consequences of prolonged silence around an illness in a body already exhausted before pregnancy.

“There is a serious gap in this country between awareness and access,” she said, adding that while awareness has gradually improved in cities, access to care has not expanded nearly enough, particularly in the areas that need it most.

So Where Does That Leave Us?

It is easy to read these numbers and feel overwhelmed. The geography is vast. The stigma is deeply rooted. The infrastructure gaps are real and not easily closed.

But the mothers of rural Pakistan—the woman in Tharparkar whose baby cries while she stares at the ceiling, the woman in Kohistan who has not smiled since delivery, the woman in interior Punjab who believes her suffering is punishment rather than illness—deserve to be part of this conversation.

An estimated 24 million people in Pakistan need psychiatric support today. Most will never receive it—not because the need is absent, but because the support has never reached them.

Which raises a question that becomes harder to ignore the more clearly we see the scale of what is happening:

In a country where millions of mothers cannot reach support, can support be brought to them instead? Can government, civil society, and even the corporate sector—through communication reach, CSR platforms, and public influence—work together to bring postpartum depression out of silence and ensure that more mothers in Pakistan feel seen, heard, and supported?

It is a question worth sitting with. Because the answer, if it exists, could change everything.

The post Beyond the city limits — the mothers nobody is talking about appeared first on HUM News English.

The high-velocity hum of the 38-day conflict between the United States and Iran has faded into an uneasy silence, but in the halls of the Pentagon and even within the strategic thinking of Islamabad, one can hear the sounds of an impending crisis getting louder than ever. Although the fragile truce brokered in our own backyard provides with a respite from military action in the Persian Gulf region, the new bottom line paints a disturbing picture.

Although Washington may have emerged victorious from this battle in the short run, it appears that they have done so at the expense of their own strategic deterrent system designed to maintain peace in the international community.

The Exhausted Arsenal: A "Burn Rate" Crisis

The information that comes from the war can serve as a wake-up call regarding global security. According to various sources, the United States has used more than 1,100 stealth cruise missiles, the "crown jewels" of American precision weapons within less than a month. For clarification, such an expenditure can be described as exhausting almost all the existing stockpile that was intended for a full-blown war against China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Due to its excessive eagerness to take control of Tehran, the U.S. government has deprived itself of the capability to engage in a strategic competition with China. The problem here lies in the "burn rate" of the present military campaign:

Tomahawk Depletion: More than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles have been launched; the production level does not exceed one-tenth of such a number annually.

Defensive Depletion: Deploying 1,200 Patriots interceptors, which cost approximately $4.8 billion (the unit price being $4 million), creates a threat to other important positions.

It can be called "Boutique Shop Paradox". The military-industrial complex of America has transformed from the "Arsenal of Democracy" into a specialised boutique shop. It is capable of producing unrivaled weapons yet cannot produce them enough.

The Geographic Shell Game

For the United States to sustain its assault against Iran’s infrastructures, it has to engage in “geographic shell games,” shifting its resources from one theater of war in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region to another. This gap is delivering the impression to other powers in the region that America’s “Iron Mountain” of ammunition is seriously running out.

The financial impact is equally as huge. While taking into account the price of the army’s operations at around $1 billion per day, it means that the present campaign costing $38 billion is merely the beginning. The true expense is the “replacement lead time,” which alludes to the number of years required to reconstruct the highly complex mechanisms employed in days.

The Atlantic fracture: Europe’s great diversification

Beyond the missile counts and the "Boutique Shop Paradox," the 38-day conflict has sent a seismic tremor through the foundations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In the halls of the current EU summit in Cyprus, the conversation has shifted from "burden sharing" to "strategic survival."

European capitals, watching the American "Iron Mountain" of munitions liquefy in the Persian Gulf, are confronting a chilling realization: the U.S. security umbrella is no longer a matter of will, but of physical capacity. With Washington’s stockpile depleted and political rhetoric most notably Donald Trump’s recent threats to expel Spain from NATO and sever trade ties becoming increasingly isolationist, the push for "Strategic Autonomy" has turned into a sprint. Europe is now openly questioning its ability to deter a Russian threat without the U.S. logistical backbone.

This looming "divorce" in both military procurement and technological standards threatens to gut the long-term earnings of the U.S. defense sector; as Europe diversifies its dependencies, the American military-industrial complex risks losing its most stable captive market, further accelerating the superpower's descent from global hegemon to regional player.

Tehran’s Asymmetric Triumph

In the case of the Islamic Republic, however, the 38-day war proved that the theory of asymmetric attrition was correct. While Iran suffered great losses in its conventional infrastructure, the exhaustion of the strategic reserve of America was viewed as the final triumph of the Islamic government. In its capacity as a “strategic sponge,” Iran succeeded in absorbing the deterrent impact intended for the Pacific region. In other words, Iran became not only the victim but also the instigator, exposing the industrial weakness of the lone superpower.

A Strategic Reckoning in Islamabad

As negotiations on the comprehensive deal continue in Islamabad, the interim government in Washington faces an unpleasant reality. Deterrence is not only the readiness for a war but also the capability to fight one. By applying the cutting-edge yet constrained weapon systems as tools of regional control, the USA demonstrated that it may find itself at the dawn of a new age of "unlimited power."

Nevertheless, the lesson learned by the year 2026 is evident: There are no tactical gains in case of strategic failures. No nation could be called a superpower without weaponry, and, for all those countries that stand alongside the USA, including Taiwan and Tokyo, the prospects look increasingly grim. For the government in Washington, the only way forward seems either to undertake a complete technological breakthrough or to acknowledge the expendability of the USA's international dominance as a missile technology.

The post Iran War’s hidden cost: how a 38-day conflict drained America’s arsenal appeared first on HUM News English.

On the surface, the formal negotiations between two major adversaries, mediated by Pakistan, have concluded. However, in my assessment, these talks have not ended; rather, they mark the dawn of a new era of hope. This process has initiated a formal, face-to-face dialogue the first of its kind allowing both sides to explore new avenues and build mutual understanding.

There was a time, not long ago, when the world watched in horror as the Middle East was engulfed in conflict. Reports were streaming in of relentless drone and missile strikes across Gulf nations, sparking deep resentment among Arab states. The scale of destruction within Iran, following retaliatory strikes by the US and Israel, was equally catastrophic. The potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the subsequent collapse of regional economic stability were scenarios that sent shivers down the spine of the global community.

As populations worldwide grappled with anxiety, surging inflation, and the consequences of unrest, peace loving nations like Pakistan remained deeply unsettled. Islamabad was resolute: the region could not be allowed to succumb to a total conflagration. In this critical hour, Pakistan’s initiative to extend a hand of mediation and successfully bring the United States and Iran to the historic negotiating table was an extraordinary achievement.

For the past few days, the world’s collective gaze was fixed on Islamabad, searching for a path toward peace. Following 21 hours of intense deliberations, the US Vice President expressed his profound gratitude for Pakistan’s hospitality. He explicitly acknowledged that Pakistan played a pivotal role in helping both nations move closer to a potential resolution. While he expressed regret that a final, comprehensive treaty was not reached during this round, he remained optimistic about future breakthroughs. Vice President JD Vance remarked, "We are departing with a final, best offer for Iran, and we now await their response".

Simultaneously, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, lauded Pakistan’s constructive role. Tehran expressed its sincere thanks for Pakistan’s hosting of the talks and its tireless efforts to move the dialogue forward. The Iranian delegation noted that while consensus was reached on numerous points, a final agreement remained elusive due to disagreements on two critical issues. In my view, these sticking points likely revolve around the nuclear program and the operational control of the Strait of Hormuz, as Iranian sources have long maintained they will not accept US oversight of the strategic waterway.

Representing the Pakistani government, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar stated that both nations responded positively to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s personal request for dialogue. He described the multiple rounds of talks as "comprehensive and constructive". The Deputy Prime Minister, alongside Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, provided critical facilitation throughout the process.

Dar voiced his hope that both nations would move forward with a positive mindset for the sake of global and regional stability, noting that Pakistan remains committed to its role as a facilitator. Most importantly, it is imperative that both parties uphold their commitment to the ongoing ceasefire.

In my final analysis, nothing has been lost. This round provided a vital opportunity to navigate technical complexities and clarify key positions. Pakistan has emerged on the global stage as a preeminent force for peace. This moment reinforces the fact that Pakistan does not merely raise its voice against regional sabotage and terrorism, but proves through its actions that it will leave no stone unturned in working with its partners to build a greater, more prosperous region.

The post Islamabad Talks: one side of picture the other is yet to come! appeared first on HUM News English.

In relation to the geopolitical nature of the region, the current state of affairs is the volatility of the geopolitics within the region and the recent announcement of a ceasefire between the US and Iran, with Pakistan acting as an intermediary not only as a temporary strategic step towards easing tensions, but as an important development within the framework of the new world order, which goes beyond the unipolar world system. The strategic decision by US president Donald Trump of calling off a planned attack on Iran contingent on the latter ensuring the safety of movement through the Strait of Hormuz is a relatively unusual step under such volatile circumstances.

These concessions made by the United States are nothing but exceptionally unique in nature. Some of them include respecting a policy of non-aggression, acknowledging the sovereignty of the Iranian over the Strait of Hormuz, which is a strategically important place for more than 21% of the world's oil and 25% of liquefied natural gas moves through it every day  accepting uranium enrichment in Iran, lifting all direct and indirect sanctions against the country, abolishing all the UN Security Council resolutions and those passed by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the matter, compensation for the loss of life caused by years of economic war, removing American soldiers from the region, and stopping hostility from every front.

Pragmatism over escalation: Iran’s strategic shift in leadership

It does not involve the maximalist tactics employed by the previous administration under Donald Trump, where the US withdrew from the JCPOA agreement of 2015 and assassinated General Qasem Soleimani. Nor is it what the Iranians had anticipated in case of an Israel-America strike on the deceased Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is a pragmatic move. The Iranian government has been resilient, using its asymmetric capabilities, including ballistic missiles and proxy forces, particularly Hezbollah, to impose costs that Washington could not afford immediately. Accepting the truce by the new Supreme Leader is an indication of the consistent nature of Iran’s policy approach. Sovereignty and security take precedence before bargaining concessions. While the new leader is known as a hawk with an aggressive nature behind the scenes, he has displayed pragmatism without violating any of the country’s principles.

The last-minute intervention that helped prevent conflict

It is a diplomatic triumph. The presence of the Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, who urged the conflicting parties to restrain themselves during the last hour before the approaching deadline for launching massive attacks imposed by Trump, proved to be the key factor in preventing a potentially destructive situation. Islamabad possessed the winning trump due to its special position: the state has been always considered a trustworthy security ally for the United States and at the same time is located near Iran, which is interested in regional stability. The current economic hardships in Pakistan make it vulnerable and in need of energy supplies from the Middle East. Any disruption of the Strait of Hormuz could cause unprecedented hikes in prices of crude oil, moreover, the conflict can easily spill into Balochistan, thus turning into a proxy one at our own doorstep.

Iran’s threshold status and the new logic of deterrence

From a strategic perspective, the arrangement highlights the declining hegemonic role of US military power in the multipolar world order. President Trump’s “achieved military objectives” seem more of rhetoric than any decisive action. While precision attacks against the Iranian nuclear facilities will create temporary damage, they will not remove Tehran’s dominant presence within its latency period. The current Iranian enrichment program, now acknowledged by the international community, makes the Islamic Republic move toward a “threshold” status, which acts as a deterrence on its own lines similar to what Pakistan faced after 1998. The removal of secondary sanctions might also allow the export of Iranian oil to the market, which might help in reducing the pressure of energy needs worldwide but will bring competition in the region for the Gulf countries.

Inclusion of Israel in the overall plan is perhaps the most delicate aspect of it. Historically, Israel has considered Iran’s nuclear ambitions and proxy wars as a threat to its survival. In fact, association of Hezbollah with the overall plan suggests that the US is seeking to reach some sort of grand bargain deal with Iran; however, the Netanyahu government might interpret it as capitulation. Indeed, as the history reveals, Israeli spoiling behavior in the form of the Osirak raid of 1981 and others has repeatedly blocked opportunities for diplomacy. Thus, during the 14 days of talks, not only should the US discuss matters with Iran, but also ensure that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi come on board as well.

The criticism that would come out is that this ceasefire is giving Iran a chance for defying international laws. This criticism is partially correct because Iran has managed to extract some concessions without compromising on its nuclear facilities and missile program. But what is being overlooked here is what the consequences of an all-out war would have been – the price of oil would have soared past $150; there would have been refugees from Iran flowing into Pakistan and Turkey, the Axis of Resistance would become fully active, and the help of China-Russia would be forthcoming.

Islamabad as a mediator: Opportunity beyond prestige

The true test will come during the next two weeks.

Talks in Islamabad will have to cover issues such as verifying the process of enrichment limitations, establishing a timeline for lifting sanctions, and confidence-building regarding proxy operations. Pakistan will be able to contribute positively in this context by setting up technical discussions based on our expertise in conducting nuclear negotiations and our impartiality towards both the parties. The benefit of success for Islamabad goes beyond mere prestige as it can secure its energy supply lines and engage in profitable economic interaction with Iran free of sanctions.

Ultimately, this ceasefire is neither a win nor a loss but an acknowledgement of shared fragility. It highlights the reality of the 21st century, where major powers cannot impose their will through the threat of force alone and must come to terms within the realities of geography, economics, and asymmetric deterrence. For Pakistan, this reinforces the belief that behind-the-scenes diplomacy based on national interests and regional connectivity will always remain our strongest tool. Whether this truce develops into a sustainable model like a revamped JCPOA with real teeth or fails due to pressure from both sides will rest on how astutely it is handled by policymakers in Islamabad over the coming fortnight.

The post The US-Iran two-week ceasefire: A diplomatic masterstroke or a fragile pause in the shadow of power? appeared first on HUM News English.

Amid the high-stakes game of great-power politics where a single miscalculation can unleash flames in the entire region, the world was shocked to discover Pakistan’s diplomatic masterpiece. The “Islamabad Accord”, a two-phase framework to end the US-Iran war, is no mere mediation effort. Instead, it stands as a courageous and inherently risky showcase of Pakistani initiative, made possible by the behind-the-scenes diplomacy of Field Marshal Asim Munir.

Pakistan’s diplomatic masterstroke

It is precisely in this role as a pivotal balancing force between the warring powers that the Islamabad Accord assumes profound significance. It signals Islamabad’s bold and audacious bid to position itself as a decisive actor, capable not just of managing the crisis but of actively shaping its outcome.

Phase I requires an absolute cease-fire within hours of signing, with the critical condition being the immediate re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Given how dependent the global oil market has become on energy from the region, this is perhaps the greatest immediate benefit that this framework has promised.

Phase II provides a tight 15-to-20 day window during which a more comprehensive deal can be reached and signed in person. This phase is critical in ending the war through a binding agreement addressing its root causes.

However, what sets the Accord apart from an armistice is the substance of the “grand bargain” contained within the agreement itself. As reported by sources who have been privy to discussions surrounding the framework, the deal will require Iran to provide assurances to close down their nuclear weapons program in a credible manner. In return, Washington will ease both primary and secondary sanctions against the Islamic Republic while unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets. In addition, Iran will gain unfettered access to international oil markets in a new, multilateral security arrangement that encompasses the Strait of Hormuz.

Undoubtedly, the most novel part about the Accord’s establishment is the unprecedented contribution of Pakistan to its creation. Even though nations such as Qatar, Oman, Egypt, and Turkey have supported the negotiations between Washington and Tehran, none has come up with a complete package deal that Pakistan came up with. There are certain diplomatic assets in the possession of the nation, which make it possible for it to undertake such an essential responsibility. Among those are the nuclear program ensuring high-level recognition, the close relationship with the US administration, as well as the 900 kilometers border with Iran. It should be mentioned that the coordination of Field Marshal Munir with the Vice President of the USA JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, represents a degree of mutual trust that traditional mediators lacked. For the first time ever, Pakistan does not host the negotiations; instead, it suggests proposals for them.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by HumNewsEnglish (@hum_news_english)

The benefits for Pakistan are immense. The conflict has put pressure on our western border, threatened energy supplies from which 80 per cent of our oil requirements are met, and endangered the potential involvement of non-state entities in an escalated conflict. The success of the Islamabad Agreement would bring stability to commodity pricing, relieve balance of payments difficulties, and enable the Pakistan Army to be preoccupied with internal security threats and deterrence in the east without worrying about a two-pronged threat scenario. Most importantly, it enhances our credentials as a responsible state possessing nuclear weapons, which may enhance our diplomatic weight in any future conflict.

Pakistan: From crisis manager to peacemaker in the US-Iran War

But experienced diplomats in Islamabad do not let their hopes get the better of them. The path forward is fraught with impediments. Israeli reluctance towards any form of “rehabilitation” of Iran is a significant factor. The flip-flops in the Trump Administration between its desire for a maximum-pressure policy towards Iran and its isolationism complicate matters. The Iranians, stung by previous instances of betrayal, have made clear that they will not exchange their strategic position in Hormuz for a ceasefire of merely 45 days. They want concrete assurances that no further attacks will take place.

Over the next three days, it is critical that this construct survive. Should Field Marshal Munir and Pakistan's diplomatic community be able to guide the parties to the finish line, Pakistan will have orchestrated its version of the Nixon to China strategy, not through balancing one power over the other but by virtue of its ability to broker an agreement out of its strategic interests.

For a nation which has always found itself entangled in the crises that arise from its immediate surroundings, Islamabad Accord provides Pakistan the opportunity to tell a different story: Pakistan as the grown-up in the room turning its geography, its relations and its credibility into peace-making tools. All eyes in the world have suddenly turned to our capital. This time round, we pray they aren’t looking for signs of conflict but rather hoping that Pakistani diplomacy would prevent the most destructive war ever fought in our history.

The post Islamabad Accord: Pakistan’s pivot from regional balancer to global peacemaker appeared first on HUM News English.

Pakistan's recent moves in the ongoing US-Iran conflict, which escalated in late February 2026 with US and Israeli strikes, reflect a pragmatic move from its historic position of "cautious neutrality" towards active mediation. The motivation for this is driven by core national security interests rather than ideological affinities. The fact that Pakistan is making overtures to host talks, carrying a reported 15-point US proposal to Iran, and organising a quadrilateral meeting of foreign ministers involving Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt in Islamabad on March 29-30, 2026, reflects a pragmatic approach to manage the situation in the unstable multipolar Middle East.

The Iran-US mediation track: Geography, Ties, and Self-Interest

Pakistan's role as mediator is facilitated by its geographical position. Pakistan and Iran have a 900-kilometer border, with considerable portions in the unstable Balochistan region, which has seen threats from cross-border extremist groups like Jaish al-Adl. A total breakdown in Persian Gulf relations would directly impact Pakistan's energy security (Iran has historically been an important, if intermittent, supplier) and create instability in its western provinces, including increased Balochistan insurgency activity.

Pakistan has fraternal historical and cultural ties with Iran, given its Shia and Sunni demographics, historical anti-Soviet cooperation in Afghanistan, and periodic border management agreements. However, it is also a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) of the US since 2004. Recent reports confirm that Pakistan's officials, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, have been in contact with both Iran and the US, carrying US communications, including on issues like sanctions relief, nuclear and missile limitations, Strait of Hormuz access, and proxy group controls, and expressing readiness to host US-Iran indirect or direct talks in Islamabad.

From a military point of view, this is not altruism but conflict de-escalation in deterrence by denial. A larger conflict risks the environment of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which relies in part on Gulf shipping routes.

From the perspective of Pakistani defense planners, mediation is an opportunity to gain strategic importance for Washington without significant cost, especially in light of the pivot to Asia without offending Beijing, which is Pakistan's main economic and military ally. Success, partial or otherwise (such as humanitarian corridors or local ceasefires), would reinforce Pakistan's status as a "pivotal state" in being able to bridge gaps beyond those which larger powers can address.

The challenges are considerable, however. Iran's response has been lukewarm, and Washington under President Trump has sent mixed signals. There is also an "Indian factor" in terms of its alignment with Israel and its potential to take advantage of Pakistan's distractions.

The quadrilateral alignment: A middle-power 'Stabilization Axis'

The March 2026 meeting of foreign ministers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt in Islamabad represents another level of organisation in this pivot. This is not an alliance but an informal middle-power grouping with the objective of conflict de-escalation in the Iran conflict, Red Sea/Gulf security, and regional stabilization. This is an extension of prior informal talks, such as in Riyadh, and represents Islamabad's attempt to engage other Sunni-majority states.

The presence of Saudi Arabia and Egypt gives financial weight, strategic depth in the Gulf/Red Sea, and Sunni influence in the Middle East. Alliances in this region would secure Pakistan's historic security relationships with Saudi Arabia, including troop deployment in the past, and would make Pakistan an important player in strategic waterways.

Türkiye adds a defense industry component, which is particularly significant for Pakistan. Pakistan and Türkiye have developed their strategic cooperation in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with Turkish drones Bayraktar TB2 and Akıncı already in service in Pakistan, with advanced talks for setting up a combat drone assembly facility in Pakistan, including stealth/long-endurance drones, as well as Kizilelma technology transfer. Cooperation in naval platforms, such as MILGEM-class corvettes with local construction in Karachi Shipyard, is also an area of cooperation. This cooperation would provide diversification for Pakistan from sole reliance on China or the West, including in developing asymmetric warfare capacities such as drone warfare for effective deterrence.

This 'Stabilization Axis' would, therefore, act as a force multiplier. It would bypass the stalemate in all other international organisations (OIC, Arab League, or UN) by using the common interest in preventing escalation, securing economic lifelines, and asserting collective Muslim world leadership in a multipolar world order. For Pakistan, this would mean a significant increase in diplomatic weight beyond the conventional military balance.

Domestic and strategic payoffs

This assertive foreign policy posture would achieve several internal payoffs for Pakistan:

•           Economic Security: Regional tensions would directly affect the viability of CPEC Phase 2 industrial zones, energy projects, and connectivity to Central Asia/Middle East.

•           Strategic Autonomy: Through these multiple poles of influence – the U.S. as the MNNA, China via the CPEC/BRI route, the Gulf States, and Türkiye, Islamabad is hedging against the threat of 'alignment pressure.' This strategic approach minimizes the threat of coercion by any one power and positions Pakistan as a mediator whose value lies in the strength of its relationships and the strength of its nuclear umbrella and large standing army.

The military leadership in Pakistan, headed by Field Marshal Asim Munir, has been quite visible in these outreach programs. This is because the military has always been the de facto decision-maker in Islamabad.

Risks and the 'How Far' Question

There are risks and the question of 'how far' Islamabad can go in this new role. The ability of Pakistan to act as a mediator depends on its own economic strength and ability to deal with the threat of peripheries – the militancy in Balochistan and the threat of opportunistic actions by India in the eastern sector. The metrics for success in this scenario will be incremental reduced tensions, resumption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and confidence-building measures. The question of overreach and the extent to which Islamabad can go without alienating either side Tehran if it is perceived to be too close to the U.S. or Washington if it is perceived to be too soft on Tehran will be critical.

In the multipolar Middle East with the overall strategic dynamics of the region tilted towards the process of 'retrenchment' and 'proxy fatigue' and the rise of the 'middle power' in the region, the path that Islamabad is taking is in complete conformity with the 'middle power' theory. The 'Calculated Pivot' that Islamabad is taking is a rational approach in the context of the Middle East and the Islamic world in the 21st century.

The post Pakistan’s strategic mediation in the Middle East appeared first on HUM News English.

As global tensions intensify and conflict once again threatens the stability of critical energy corridors, Pakistan stands at a defining crossroads.

The ongoing geopolitical unrest particularly around key transit routes such as the Strait of Hormuz has exposed the fragility of global energy supply chains. For Pakistan, a country heavily reliant on imported LNG and petroleum products, this is not just a crisis it is a strategic wake-up call. The disruption of global energy flows has historically triggered price volatility, supply uncertainty, and fiscal strain on import-dependent economies.

Pakistan is no exception. However, within this challenge lies a significant opportunity: the urgent revival and prioritisation of indigenous oil and gas exploration.

Pakistan possesses untapped hydrocarbon potential across multiple basins, including Balochistan, Sindh, and offshore regions. Yet, exploration activity has remained subdued due to regulatory bottlenecks, pricing uncertainties, and delayed decision-making.

At a time when global energy security is under threat, Pakistan cannot afford inertia. The ongoing conflict has driven international oil prices upward and placed immense pressure on LNG cargo availability. Countries with strong domestic production capabilities are far better positioned to weather such shocks. Pakistan must therefore shift its focus from reactive energy procurement to proactive resource development.

A key starting point is restoring investor confidence. Exploration and production companies require policy clarity, timely approvals, and above all, predictable pricing frameworks. The persistent delays in price notifications and regulatory indecision have discouraged investment and slowed down field development. This must change immediately.The government must send a clear and unequivocal signal: indigenous gas will be prioritized, fairly priced, and promptly monetised.

Incentive structures under existing petroleum policies should be fully honored, without reinterpretation or delay. Where gaps exist, targeted reforms should be introduced to accelerate exploration in high-potential zones. Equally important is the need to streamline coordination between regulatory bodies. Fragmented decision-making and overlapping mandates have long hindered the sector’s progress. In times of crisis, institutional alignment is not optional, it is essential.

Pakistan’s reliance on imported LNG, often at volatile spot prices, has proven to be both economically and strategically risky. Increasing domestic gas production is not just an economic imperative; it is a matter of national security.

Furthermore, the private sector must be empowered to play a larger role. Companies operating within Pakistan have demonstrated technical capability and resilience, even under challenging conditions. With the right policy environment, they can rapidly scale up exploration and production activities.The current geopolitical environment should serve as a catalyst for bold decision-making. Pakistan must not wait for the crisis to deepen before acting.

The time to unlock indigenous resources is now. In the face of global uncertainty, nations that control their energy destiny will emerge stronger. Pakistan has the resources, the expertise, and the opportunity. What it needs is decisive action.

The post War clouds, strategic opportunity: why Pakistan must act now to unlock its oil & gas potential appeared first on HUM News English.

Islamabad has hosted a crucial gathering today.

On the surface, the foreign ministers of three countries, Egypt, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia, are meeting in Islamabad. However, this can also be described as a warm-up session for a more significant phase. These three countries are convening at a time when the threat of war spreading across the region looms large.

The Middle East is engulfed in flames, and this fire could expand at any moment. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia’s prudence and restraint are commendable, yet other Gulf states could fall prey to a deeper Israeli design. Pakistan is walking a tightrope. Why is it taking this risk? Because it is the one country most likely to be directly affected first in any serious escalation. That is precisely why Pakistan has, so far, been working to prevent this fire from spreading. It seeks peace, while also trying to shield itself from the flames.

Pakistan is not mediating, but rather facilitating contacts keeping the hope of peace alive.

'Buying Time' Is Pakistan's Priority

In reality, Pakistan’s primary objective throughout this phase is to 'buy as much time as possible' and that remains its top priority. The search for a way forward, through the acquisition of time, continues to drive Pakistan’s actions.

The efforts made by Pakistan over the past few days have not only been acknowledged but also appreciated, which is why Pakistan now finds itself at center stage.

Contacts, not an isolated move

The Field Marshal’s direct contact with President Trump was not an isolated move; it was the result of structured diplomacy conducted in Islamabad beforehand. This was not merely a phone call—it reflected prior engagement with key ambassadors, including China, and a carefully coordinated strategy that made this formal outreach possible. Following Pakistan’s request, the United States first delayed strikes on Iran’s energy facilities for five days, and later extended this pause to ten days. Most significantly, two key Iranian figures, Speaker Baqer Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, were removed from the target list.

Trust With Pakistan

Steve Witkoff’s acknowledgment that fifteen demands were conveyed to Iran through Pakistan is a clear indication of the trust both Iran and the United States place in Pakistan. During this period, Iran also signaled a few “diplomatic gestures,” which led to an hour-long conversation between Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and President Pezeshkian.

Islamabad's strategy

Islamabad’s first priority remains extending the current pause in U.S. strikes. The second is to create space and opportunities for direct dialogue between the two countries, while the third stage would involve securing guarantees from a major power between them.

(N vs N) Nightmare or normalisation

The war has now entered its second phase, with Yemen’s Houthis launching attacks on Israel and signaling further involvement. There have also been threats to close another critical maritime chokepoint in the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandab Strait. If that happens, it could become another nightmare after the Strait of Hormuz. The scope of war in the region is expanding, while peace increasingly appears like a distant dream. Whether Pakistan’s efforts will succeed in facilitating dialogue between the U.S. Vice President and the Iranian Speaker is too early to say. However, history once again places Pakistan at center stage, much like in 1972, when it played a direct role in easing tensions between China and the United States.

The post Warmup talks: how Pakistan reached the centre stage? appeared first on HUM News English.

In the Western narrative, the final two days of strikes have been framed as the final blow to the Iranian leadership. While the loss of such major figures undoubtedly represents a significant blow to the Iranian political and military establishment, the Iranian reaction over the past day or two has proven to be unexpected. Rather than descending into chaos as many might have anticipated due to the loss of such major figures within the Iranian military and political establishment, their reaction has proven to be swift and coordinated.

It was assumed that the loss of such major figures as Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, and Brigadier General Gholamreza Soleimani would cause significant chaos within th e Iranian establishment. Instead, the swift and coordinated reaction by the Iranian military suggests that the Iranian establishment had already developed contingency plans that would allow them to react and operate even in the face of such significant loss.

The losses are clearly significant on an emotional and symbolic level, but Iran’s leadership has responded by projecting continuity, control and an ability to retaliate across multiple fronts in the Middle East.

Rather than appearing shaken, the Iranian system has so far looked more resilient and structurally intact than many expected. Despite major losses within its political and military ranks, the state still appears functional and far from collapse. Instead of buckling under pressure from the international community and a prolonged regional conflict, Iran appears to be absorbing the blows while continuing to respond militarily and politically.

Much of the outside analysis that has failed has been based on an understanding of the individuals within the Iranian system.

However, the removal of Larijani, who is seen as the thinking brain behind the Iranian system, is not going to topple the Supreme National Security Council. In fact, it may result in an even more hardline policy, as the voices of reason are not at the table. Similarly, the attempt to divide the Basij and internal security forces that were attempted in response to the assassination of Soleimani failed. In truth, the Iranian military is decentralised. This is a model that has been beneficial in an asymmetric war.

Sanctions, isolation, and war have created redundancy in their military, political, and technological infrastructures. Their missiles and drones continue to have range even in the face of significant infrastructure damage. However, the ideological commitment is also an important part of the Iranian system. Within the Islamic tradition, martyrdom is not seen as defeat but as a way of galvanising the opposition. This is an important part of the Iranian system that is often underestimated within the Western tradition. However, it is an important part of keeping the morale of the people and the military at a high level. 

In addition, an attack designed to break the spirit of the Iranian people may have the opposite effect and bring them closer together. In the future, the power of Iran is going to be consolidated within their ruling elite. Individuals such as Mojtaba Khamenei and Hossein Salami may be in a position of greater power and potentially bring in an informal war cabinet that is focused on survival and not politics. In addition, the Iranian allies within the region may be in a position to gain more freedom and potentially act on their own. This may bring significant and unpredictable change within the Middle East.

Ultimately, the U.S. and Israel may point to tactical victories from targeted killings, but the strategic question will still be up in the air. The predicted implosion hasn’t occurred. Iran has struck back with speed, intent, and power, with a warfare mentality that is agile, decentralized, and ideologically driven.

The loss of Larijani and Soleimani will be a severe blow, but Iran is making the most of this opportunity to demonstrate a collective response to retaliation, pushing back against the narrative of weakness.

The Islamic Republic may not emerge unscathed, but it is certainly shown itself to be flexible and resilient under pressure, becoming tougher and maybe even more mercurial on the international stage.

The post The Phoenix of Tehran: Why the ‘Twelve-Day War’ Has Not Broken Iran appeared first on HUM News English.

Over the past year, every newsroom conversation seems to revolve around AI. Some fear it will replace journalists. Others think it will solve everything overnight. But the reality inside most newsrooms is much simpler: we are barely using it.

Not because the tools are not there. They are. Not because journalists cannot learn them. They can. The gap is structural, and it is hiding in plain sight.

Anthropic, the company behind Claude, recently published research that caught my attention. Rather than theorising about what AI might eventually do to various professions, they went straight to the data, millions of real AI conversations, and asked what people are actually using it for at work today. Then they mapped those findings against hundreds of occupations to measure the gap between what AI could theoretically handle and what organisations are genuinely deploying it for.

Theoretical AI exposure simply means: how much of what you do in your job could AI technically assist with? A journalist spends most of their day reading stories, documents, researching backgrounds, writing copy, and reformatting content for different platforms. AI can already help with most of that. So journalism scores high on theoretical exposure. But scoring high on potential and actually using the tools are two very different things. That gap is exactly what this research is measuring.

*Computer and math occupations: 92 percent theoretical AI exposure, 30 percent actual use. Business and finance: 85 percent potential, 14 percent observed. Office administration: 87 percent potential, 11 percent real-world usage. Legal: 80 percent potential, 6 percent actual adoption. Arts and media, the category that most directly covers journalism, sits at 62 percent theoretical coverage and roughly 13 percent real use.

The same gap shows up across every profession that relies on knowledge work. Construction and trades? Fourteen percent theoretical exposure, three percent actual. Nobody is losing sleep over AI replacing plumbers. But in journalism, where the exposure numbers are among the highest, the panic has completely outpaced the practice.

What AI Cannot Do and Should Not Try To

Before arguing that newsrooms should embrace AI, it is worth being clear about what it cannot do. This is where the hype usually falls apart.

AI cannot cultivate a source. It cannot sit across from a minister who is dodging a question and read the room. It cannot make the kind of call an experienced editor makes on instinct. The feeling that a story is wrong, not because the facts are off, but because something nags and says wait another day. And it cannot build the trust in a community that leads to the phone call nobody else gets.

These are not just tasks. They are the core of what journalism is. And none of them are at risk from AI.

What AI does threaten, and this is the harder conversation, is the filler that surrounds real journalism in many newsrooms. The hours spent on mechanical work. The rewriting of other outlets' stories just to hit a quota. The content that exists to fill space, not serve readers. If AI makes that filler harder to defend, it is not undermining journalism. It is clearing a path back to it.

What AI Could Be Doing Right Now

None of this is theoretical. The tools exist. They work. And most newsrooms are barely touching them.

Think about what a single morning used to look like.

An eighty-page government report arrives. That is two to three hours of careful reading just to figure out what matters. Now? Five minutes to extract the key findings, and the journalist still verifies every claim before publishing.

A forty-five minute interview gets recorded. That used to mean three or four hours of transcription, head down, fingers moving. Now it is ten minutes. Searchable text. Ready to work with.

The same story needs to land on six platforms: website, social, notifications. That used to be twenty minutes of rewriting, rephrasing, reformatting. Now it is two.

Headlines? Editors can test ten variations in the time it once took to write one.

None of this replaces editorial judgment. What it removes is the weight, the hours that produce nothing a reader would ever notice or value. That time goes back to reporting. To verification. To the kind of thinking that actually moves stories forward.

The trade sounds obvious. Most newsrooms have not made it yet.

The Meeting I Have Not Forgotten

At a previous organisation, website traffic was sliding. I pulled up the publishing pattern and saw the problem immediately: the website had become a print newspaper uploaded to the internet. Stories produced for print went online. The digital team itself was putting out two or three original pieces a day, if that.

I asked them to change course. Produce more original digital content, stories that could reach people beyond our traditional readership. We were on the world wide web. We did not have to write for only one corner of it.

I also suggested using AI. Not to replace reporting. To handle the parts that were not reporting. Transcribe expert interviews. Surface angles from dense material. Turn a thirty-minute conversation with a policy expert into a publishable piece in under an hour, instead of three or four hours of manual transcription and note-taking. More subjects. Different audience segments. No corners cut on the journalism itself.

The reaction was immediate. Death stares.

Then the line I have heard, in variations, ever since: this is not real journalism.

The irony was difficult to ignore. The team most invested in defending real journalism was spending its days taking stories from other websites, rewording them, and posting them. That was the workflow AI was supposedly threatening to corrupt.

Real journalism is not defined by the absence of tools. It is defined by what you do with them.

If a journalist gathers information, verifies it, analyses it carefully, and writes something that serves the reader, the journalism lives in that judgment. The tools used to organise research or surface patterns do not change that responsibility. Journalists already depend on search engines, transcription software, analytics dashboards. AI is just a more capable extension of a toolkit that has been expanding for decades.

When AI Is Used Without Editorial Discipline

Poorly used tools introduce real risks.

A recent incident in Pakistan showed exactly how. In November 2025, Dawn, the country's most respected English-language newspaper, published a business story about automobile sales. At the bottom, readers found what appeared to be a leftover AI prompt, suggesting the writer create a snappier version of the piece.

It went live. Within hours, it was everywhere on social media.

The easy lesson was AI carelessness. The real one was older and more uncomfortable: the final copy had not been properly read before publication. That is rule one. Has been since before computers. Someone reads it before it goes out.

AI does not remove that responsibility. It raises the stakes. When editors stop reading their own pages carefully, a new kind of error enters. Not a factual mistake, but a failure of process. That is what happened at Dawn. And it will happen again at any organisation that adopts AI tools without reinforcing the basic disciplines around them.

The Gaps Nobody Is Talking About

There is a second place where adoption failure becomes visible: analytics.

Just last week, a colleague mentioned that something felt off about our website traffic. The instinct was right. But the conversation stopped there.

No one asked which search queries had shifted over the past two months. Which pages were driving organic sessions. Whether engagement time was behaving differently across story formats.

The data existed. It was sitting in our dashboards, updated daily. We just were not looking at it in a way that would tell us anything.

With the right questions and structured data, an AI assistant can surface those patterns in minutes, work that would take an experienced analyst days to do manually. But without a workflow for gathering and interpreting that data, it just sits there. The problem is not access. It is structure.

The same logic applies to the tools themselves. Most newsroom management is not investing in AI for their teams. So individual journalists and editors are quietly subscribing on their own. Paying out of pocket. Building skills while their institutions stand still.

I tell people to do exactly that. Do not wait for someone to hand you permission. Learn it yourself.

But organisations that leave this entirely to individuals will eventually watch those individuals leave.

The Skills Gap Quietly Emerging

There is also a generational dimension to this. Newsroom leaders are beginning to feel it in hiring.

Anthropic's research found that hiring of 22-to-25-year-olds into AI-exposed roles across knowledge industries has dropped by around 14 percent since generative AI tools became widely available. The implication is not that entry-level jobs are vanishing. It is that the job itself has changed.

The tasks that used to define junior work, scanning documents, summarising reports, preparing research briefs, formatting content, can now be done with AI. Organisations are no longer looking for someone to perform those tasks manually. They want people who can work the tools.

Journalism schools are only beginning to catch up. Which means young journalists arrive in newsrooms one of two ways: they have taught themselves AI skills on the side, or they have not touched them at all. Very few have been shown how to use these tools responsibly inside an actual editorial workflow.

The journalists who will be most valuable in five years are not necessarily the strongest writers in the room today. They are the ones who understand how to combine editorial judgment with the tools that are reshaping how information is gathered and processed.

What Getting This Right Actually Looks Like

The newsrooms adapting most effectively are not the ones with the largest budgets. They are the ones that started with a simple question: which parts of our editorial process consume the most time and produce the least original value?

For most newsrooms, the answer is the same. Research aggregation. Background briefs before interviews. Podcast transcription. Document summarisation. Metadata and SEO tagging. Social media reformatting.

None of these are journalism. All of them currently consume journalist hours that could go toward work readers cannot get elsewhere.

Once you have that list, the next question is: what does AI help look like for each person in the building? A court reporter needs something different from a live bulletin producer, who needs something different from a social media editor. Generic workshops will not get you there. The training has to be tied to the work.

And then the rules. Clear guidelines on where AI is appropriate, how its use is disclosed, who is accountable when something goes wrong. Without those boundaries, individual journalists make consequential decisions alone. The Dawn incident was partly the result of exactly that absence.

Where This Leaves Us

The transition will not be clean. Newsrooms are slow to change workflows, and AI will produce some uncomfortable moments before it produces lasting improvements. The Dawn incident will not be the last of its kind.

But the essential work of journalism has never depended on the absence of tools. It has depended on the judgment applied to using them. That has not changed.

The gap in the Anthropic data, 62 percent potential and 13 percent actual, will close. The only question is whether it closes through deliberate editorial leadership or through a series of avoidable mistakes that each newsroom has to learn separately.

Do not wait for someone to force it on you. That applies to individual journalists. And it applies to the institutions that employ them.

*Source: Anthropic Economic Index, March 2026 | anthropic.com/economic-index

The post Newsrooms are talking about AI. They’re barely using it. appeared first on HUM News English.

The Punjab government’s recent decision to enforce the 2002 Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health Ordinance across the province is a landmark public health move. Under this directive, smoking will be banned in all enclosed public places, including school and college campuses, government offices, hospitals, shopping malls and public transport, and vendors will face tough new penalties. Anyone caught smoking or selling cigarettes or other tobacco products in restricted areas can be fined up to Rs.100,000, and repeated violators may have their businesses sealed. Schools and colleges have been directed to appoint compliance officers to educate students about the ban and ensure it is followed. These measures send a clear message: the era of allowing casual smoking (and now vaping or tobacco and nicotine products use) in public is reaching an end.

This crackdown revives a law that has long been on the books but was seldom enforced. The 2002 ordinance already forbids smoking in virtually all indoor public spaces, and specifically bans tobacco in the immediate vicinity of schools and universities. For example, it prohibits sales, distribution or advertising of cigarettes within about 50 meters of any educational institution. A 2020 regulatory order (SRO 72(I)/2020) even banned all forms of tobacco advertising and display at points of sale, in line with international best practices. Yet despite these strict rules, enforcement was lax: students could still see classmates smoking on campus, and roadside shops sold cigarettes, hookah supplies, and even e-cigarette pods near school gates. That situation must now change.

It is also heartening that Punjab is not acting alone in this fight. Other provinces and cities have taken bold anti-tobacco steps that complement this crackdown.

To make the law effective, the government has mandated that all tobacco retailers visibly post the official health warning posters and “No Smoking” signs at their outlets. Inspectors will patrol schools, buses, hospitals, and restaurants looking for infractions, and any sale of hookah, e-liquids, or nicotine pouches in restricted areas will draw heavy penalties. The 50-meter buffer zone around schools is being enforced in full: any shop violating it faces immediate action. Transport authorities will stamp every public bus and taxi with a “No Smoking” sticker and ticket smokers on the spot. In effect, anyone who tries to light up in a banned area will be caught and punished. Emphasizing educational institutions is crucial, since studies show most adult smokers first tried nicotine as teens, often on school or college grounds.

This step by the Punjab government is therefore extremely praiseworthy and long overdue. Health experts estimate that tobacco causes heart disease, lung cancer, and other illnesses, which kill well over one hundred thousand Pakistanis each year. Protecting students and non-smokers from these risks is vital. Many countries long ago enacted similar laws: for example, in Ireland, the UK, and dozens of other nations, smoking is banned in all schools, workplaces and restaurants, and violations are strictly penalized. Punjab is now joining that global trend by finally acting on its own and the federal laws. The provincial leadership and education officials should be lauded for this resolve.

Of course, the tobacco and vape industries will not take this lightly. The legal challenges around vaping illustrate this well. When Punjab announced its vape ban and ordered shops closed, dozens of retailers petitioned Lahore’s High Court. In late June 2025, the court issued an interim order allowing vape stores to reopen pending further review. Ultimately, the judges noted that without an explicit ban against e-cigarettes and vapes, the administration’s action had no firm legal basis. This episode underscores a basic point: declaring a policy is one thing, but it must be backed by clear legislation. Punjab’s assembly should therefore codify bans on all new nicotine products so that future court rulings cannot undermine public health.

It is also heartening that Punjab is not acting alone in this fight. Other provinces and cities have taken bold anti-tobacco steps that complement this crackdown. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, for instance, recently used emergency powers to impose a 60-day ban on vape sales near schools and to anyone under 21 years of age. KP is moving to enact comprehensive laws covering hookah, naswar, and other smokeless tobacco products. Sindh province has banned indoor hookah lounges and requires graphic warning signs in public areas, besides a stringent ban on Gutka. Even in Islamabad, licenses are mandatory for every tobacco vendor, and the city conducts frequent raids, showing that strict enforcement works in our cities as well. Together, these efforts show that Pakistan as a whole is moving toward international standards of tobacco control.

Punjab’s approach aligns with international benchmarks. The WHO recommends that all public places be smoke-free, combined with public education campaigns and support for quitting. Many countries pair smoking bans with steep taxes and plain-packaging rules to discourage use. For example, Australia and the UK now require plain cigarette packaging with large graphic warnings; Pakistan already has pictorial warning stickers covering 60% of each pack’s surface, although, following Nepal’s good example, this needs to be increased to 100%. Some nations are even phasing down nicotine levels to aim for a smoke-free generation. Others, like Singapore and India, ban e-cigarettes entirely. These measures show how a comprehensive, multi-pronged policy can reduce smoking. Punjab’s current actions fit well within this proven strategy.

To make this crackdown lasting, the government must keep up the pressure. Enforcement cannot be a one-time blitz. Police, health officials, tobacco control advocates, and excise officers should continue regular inspections of shops near every school, college, and bus terminal. Teachers, students, and parents can help by reporting any violations they see. The government could launch a hotline or mobile app for citizens to alert authorities about illegal sales or public smoking. On the policy front, lawmakers must explicitly ban e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco products. That will prevent future court cases from rolling back these bans. In the meantime, the health department should expand smoking-cessation programs so that addicted smokers have help to quit.

The WHO recommends that all public places be smoke-free, combined with public education campaigns and support for quitting.

Punjab’s firm enforcement of the anti-smoking law is an exemplary step that deserves high praise. By reclaiming our schools, offices, buses, and parks from tobacco smoke, the government is putting people’s health first. Citizens, especially parents, teachers, and young people, should support this campaign and help keep violators in check. If this momentum is sustained, fewer youngsters will ever pick up smoking or vaping, and over time, we should see a drop in cancer, heart disease, and other smoking-related ailments. The message is clear: Punjab will no longer tolerate a culture of smoking in public. The government deserves our congratulations for taking this bold step, and we must ensure the effort continues until our province is truly smoke-free.

The post Reclaiming public spaces: why Punjab’s crackdown on smoking matters appeared first on HUM News English.

The continuing US-led military campaign against Iran, now entering its second week, reflects how rapidly new technologies are reshaping modern warfare. In the opening phase of the conflict, American and Israeli forces carried out an unprecedented wave of strikes, hitting roughly 1,000 targets within the first 24 hours of the operation, according to military officials and analysts.

This pace was made possible not only by cutting-edge hardware but also by the incorporation of radical generative AI into targeting and decision-making cycles. Palantirs Maven Smart System which combines intelligence from satellites drones signals intercepts and other classified sources is at the core of this capability. It includes Anthropics Claude large language model which has been producing suggested target lists allocating exact coordinates prioritising tasks based on strategic importance and even offering real-time post-strike evaluations according to several defense sources.  

Iran's ability to react effectively is severely limited because military planners can now work at machine speed by condensing what used to take weeks of deliberation into hours or minutes. This is thought to be one of the first widespread applications of generative AI to control kinetic operations in a significant interstate conflict.  

Prior uses such as intelligence summarisation logistics optimisation counterterrorism assistance and even the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026 have expanded to include direct warfighting under U. S. In S. Central Command. The paradox surrounding the use of the technology however is the most striking feature.  

President Trump ordered federal agencies to phase out Anthropic tools over a six-month period after negotiations broke down just hours before the campaign heated up. The Pentagon prioritised unrestricted operational access while Anthropic had demanded strict limitations on applications like fully autonomous lethal weapons or mass domestic surveillance.  

Mavens Claude integration is still in use in combat despite the public directive and it is considered impractical to abruptly stop. Contingency measures such as possible emergency powers to maintain access until replacements from OpenAI xAI or others are fielded are suggested by reports. This episode has several pressing ramifications for Pakistan. In the first place it speeds up the compression of strategic decision-making time in subsequent crises.  

The ability to combine multi-domain intelligence and produce targeting packages at machine speed greatly expands capability gaps in South Asia where nuclear thresholds and rapid mobilisation risks already define deterrence. The risk of unintentional escalation would increase if adversaries with similar tools were able to close perceived windows of vulnerability much more quickly than diplomacy or conventional forces could respond. Second the conflict between the government and vendors highlights the vulnerability of depending on commercial AI ecosystems in other countries.  

Private-sector ethical safeguards lose power once a capability is deemed mission-critical and states may use coercion or substitution to get around them. Pakistan, long aware of the strategic stakes, has invested in defense-relevant AI to ensure sovereignty in intelligence analysis, predictive modeling, and decision support, all under strict human-in-the-loop control. While generative AI accelerates operations, its biases and errors make meaningful human oversight in targeting indispensable. Pakistan must shape international norms to safeguard human control over lethal force and uphold humanitarian law.

At home, the Gulf conflict fuels anxiety and energy instability.

Islamabad’s careful diplomacy condemning strikes while calling for de-escalation reflects the delicate balance of protecting economic stability, territorial integrity, and strategic ties with Washington, a challenge it has long anticipated through sustained AI preparedness.

The post AI at war: what the U.S.–Iran AI battlefield means for Pakistan appeared first on HUM News English.

Last week following the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a charged crowd barged through US Consulate in Karachi, which led to the loss of at least nine lives. While many decided to view this incident in isolation, it needs to be understood that this is not just about some section of law being argued in courtrooms. Rather, it exposes the deep divisions within; Pakistan’s international outlook versus how ordinary Pakistanis feel about geopolitical developments.

While legal experts may point to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and its principle of “functional immunity”, which allows diplomatic staff and their security teams to perform official duties without fear of prosecution by local authorities, the core issue runs deeper. At its heart lies a widening gap in accountability and a gradual erosion of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Following the news of assassination of Khamenei, people took to the streets in a large procession, marching toward the consulate in unison. As the crowd broke through the outer perimeter, US Marine security guards opened fire, resulting in multiple deaths. But this was not a routine law-and-order situation. What unfolded was far more serious: armed foreign personnel on Pakistani soil using lethal force. That moment fundamentally altered how many people viewed diplomatic security arrangements and raised deeper questions about authority, accountability and sovereignty.

The idea of functional immunity (historically a principle that lets diplomats get on with their work without interference) can sometimes mean that those in power get to act with absolute impunity. The more we rely on these "immunity" deals, the more they reinforce the old notion that some countries (and their allies) get to be in charge - rather than fostering real co-operation.

A sovereign country must draw clear lines, stressing that diplomatic immunity cannot be more important than human life, or the right of local authorities to decide how to handle force, on their own soil.

The Foreign Office has, once again, remained conspicuously silent. This is the same institution that appeared unmoved during the Raymond Davis case, when a US contractor who shot and killed two men was granted diplomatic immunity, a decision that triggered widespread public outrage and severely strained US-Pakistan relations.

Now, history seems to be repeating itself.

Successive governments continue to prioritise “strategic stability” over transparency and accountability, allowing controversial immunity arrangements to persist. When investigations remain closed and outcomes are kept from the public, it only deepens mistrust and reinforces the perception that ordinary citizens have little say over what happens within their own country.

The incident represents the fragility of security arrangements surrounding foreign missions in Pakistan. When local authorities are perceived as unable to effectively manage threats, foreign security personnel may use the excuse of compulsion and intervene themselves, a situation that can quickly escalate with tragic consequences. Ultimately, such episodes raise fundamental questions about authority and accountability, and about who truly has the final say over the use of force on Pakistani soil, especially against whom.

Pakistan can no longer rely on decades-old security agreements from the 1960s.

Modern arrangements are needed: ones that are transparent and clearly define what is permissible in response to threats. If a foreign security agent causes a death, there must be a proper investigation, ideally conducted by an impartial tribunal, whether local or jointly with other countries, rather than leaving accountability to a distant military review abroad.

Incidents like the one in Karachi show that justice requires more than diplomatic maneuvering. When the rules protect one side and fail to give victims a path to redress, fairness is compromised and public resentment grows. Only by creating frameworks that prioritise human dignity alongside security can Pakistan begin to prevent these cycles of tragedy.

The post Sovereignty, diplomacy, and force: of ‘response’ during pro‑Khamenei protests appeared first on HUM News English.

Hours before the bombs fell, Oman’s foreign minister spoke of quiet gains. A shift had taken place in Geneva, behind closed doors, guided by Muscat’s envoys. Badr Albusaidi appeared on American television, sharing what he called an unprecedented step by Tehran. Enriched uranium would no longer pile up; none would be kept beyond immediate needs. What existed already would be changed - diluted so it could never become weapon fuel. The IAEA would check every move. By his words, old arguments about how much uranium was allowed seemed outdated now. Then came dawn on February 28, 2026. Missiles struck deep inside Iran. Among those killed: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, head of state. Damage spread across command centers and key sites. This happened just one day after hope was named aloud. Diplomacy, mid-stride, met destruction.

A sudden shift unfolded just as Iran softened its stance, exposing deep doubts about Western promises of diplomacy. The timing felt less like coincidence, more like resistance to real compromise. When openness met backlash, questions grew louder than answers. Peace talks now hang on moments that seem carefully undermined. Trust erodes fastest when moves appear choreographed rather than earned.

A wave of anger rolled through Pakistan after the strikes were labeled wrongful breaches of global rules and national rights. Sorrow weighed heavy when Shehbaz Sharif spoke of the fallen leader’s death, voice low with pain. On the phone with Iran’s foreign minister, Ishaq Dar rejected the raids as baseless - his words sharp - and pushed talks now before tensions spiral beyond control.

Desert tensions and double standards: Nuclear politics in the Middle East

Out of nowhere, tension flared along a stretch of desert where Pakistan and Iran meet, two neighbors shaped by decades of quiet understanding. Not long ago, talks had begun to ease old tensions - then explosions cracked across cities, breaking more than buildings. Fires burned at fuel sites deep inside Iran, spreading smoke over towns while families ran for shelter. In response, missiles flew back across the border under cover of night, shaking homes far from any battlefield. Oil tankers slowed near Hormuz as captains waited for signals; prices twitched on screens halfway around the world. Pakistan, still patching its own power grid and struggling with inflation, now watches unrest creep toward its western edge. Villages in Balochistan could soon fill with those fleeing violence just miles away. Trade routes meant to carry goods from Gwadar to Xinjiang now hang in uncertainty, tied to decisions made behind closed doors. Amid mourning rituals and lowered flags, many in Islamabad speak quietly about a new council rising amid grief in Tehran.

What makes one country’s nukes ignored while another gets punished? In the Middle East, Israel keeps about ninety warheads without admitting they exist. By 2026, it still refuses to join the global treaty meant to limit such arms. Meanwhile, Iran follows the rules tightly - monitored constantly - yet owns zero confirmed bombs, even with plenty of processed fuel nearby. Though Tehran cooperates fully, inspectors cannot enter Dimona; Israel blocks every check there. For years, United Nations voices have urged openness, yet nothing changes. Behind silence lies strategy: unmatched force used often against civilians near its borders, leaving trails through Gaza and Lebanon. While one nation breaks norms freely, the other bends completely under pressure. Double standards aren’t accidents here - they shape outcomes daily. Hidden capabilities turn into tools not for safety, but control, shaping lives far beyond labs and bunkers.

How Pakistan reacted shows clear principles, yet calm control - pointing fingers at violence but asking everyone to step back slowly. Because Tehran holds a legal shield through UN Chapter 51, Islamabad backs its claim to protect itself, though stressing reactions must stay within tight limits when targeting outposts tied to adversaries across borders. Even after counterblows ripple near allied strongholds, voices from officials warn any surge beyond balance risks lighting a fire spreading past West Asia toward home soil. Anger floods sidewalks in places like Peshawar and Faisalabad where crowds chant for fairness following attacks on a neighboring Islamic state plus symbolic figures held high. Outrage grows loud, yes - still, those same demonstrators echo government lines: stand firm on defense rights, hold every urge to strike harder in check for peace’s sake.

However, tough times demand stronger teamwork between Pakistan and Iran protection of borders, stopping militant spread, steady energy supplies, along with linked economies. The recent attack failed to weaken Iran’s stance; instead, unity across Muslim communities grew firmer. With strikes launched amid talks of peace progress, those responsible unknowingly pushed regional players closer toward real independence and joint safety plans. Even as it walks a careful path, refusing to pick sides, Islamabad keeps bonds alive with everyone while focusing on shielding Muslim countries’ stability and respect.

Peace never arrives on the wings of warplanes or secret killings. From dignity among nations, fair rules for everyone, and shared space for safety grows something steady. Standing beside Iran now means sharing grief, standing firm together, holding tight to fairness shaped by dialogue, not force. Those lost to violence stay alive in memory, their lives push us toward deeper unity and strength within Muslim communities everywhere.

The post The martyrdom of Khamenei: A wake-up call for the Ummah appeared first on HUM News English.

Seven years ago, India’s former consul general, Sandeep Chakravorty, spoke about the “Israeli model” for Kashmir in New York. Back in 2019, he was not only attempting to establish a historical correlation but also hinting at a possible shift in the trend of policy. So when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Israel for a critical visit this week, the “model” has already moved from being a subject of debate to becoming a reality for millions of people.

The coming together of New Delhi and Tel Aviv has now been expanded from trade and defense agreements; it is also representing a strong coming together of two nations that are redefining the notion of democracy through the prism of ethno-nationalism.

The ideological mirror: Hindutva and Zionism

The ideological similarity between Hindutva and Zionism is based on their shared commitment to “ethnic majoritarianism,” wherein the state is defined solely on the basis of a single religious and cultural identity, which is Jewish in Israel and Hindu in India. By constructing Muslim majorities as “demographic threats” or “internal enemies,” both Hindutva and Zionism attempt to shift the focus of governance from democratic pluralism to the preservation of the “purity” of the nation.  

During the ongoing visit, a light exchange about the saffron color in his and Sara Netanyahu’s attire was seen by critics as symbolic of a deeper ideological alignment between Hindutva and Zionism. They mention that saffron, once a spiritual symbol, now symbolises a majoritarian vision redefining India as a Hindu homeland, reflecting what they call a shared shift toward ethno nationalism and securitised governance often labelled as the “Israeli model, moves beyond trade into a partnership of militarised control and the institutionalisation of collective punishment.

This is more than a question of diplomatic understanding; it is a point of convergence, as proven by the widespread surveillance, territorial domination, and dehumanisation of opposition voices. Although these policies are not only against specific religious communities but are also an assault on universal human values, reducing the inherent dignity of the human person and creates a ladder where those who call themselves the “sons of the soil” are treated as more important than other citizens, instead of everyone having equal rights.

One of the most evident concepts lifted from Israel is the destruction of possessions as a form of punishment. Bulldozers in Israel are used to construct settlements and castigate Palestinians collectively. Similarly, India with the present administration headed by Yogi Adityanath, aka “Bulldozer Baba,” bulldozers have become the symbol of state power, mainly targeting Muslim homes and businesses in the name of “demolishing illegal encroachments.”

Even when challenged in court, this approach, called “Bulldozer Justice,” has proven to be versatile.

Regional stability at risk

The India-Israel relationship is not an internal Indian matter but a definite and imminent threat to the strategic balance of the region. The adoption of Israel counter terror model by Israel in Kashmir has been turning the valley into what they describe as an open -air prison, affecting its Muslim population, similar to situation associated with the Gaza strip and the West Bank where more than 70,000 have been killed since the October 7 2023 assault.

Furthermore, the Indian government's decision in 2019 to abrogate Article 370 has been the first step towards the establishment of a "settler-colonial" demographic in Kashmir, which taken directly from Israeli settlement policies playbook. On the other side of the ledger, the introduction of Israeli spyware like Pegasus and advanced UAVs into the Indian military has led to a technological imbalance that has forced Pakistan into an expensive arms race. Pakistan often draws attention to the glaring irony of the fact that a country that was once the greatest champion of decolonisation is now following the very same footprints of occupation that it once denounced.

Surveillance as statecraft

The tie between the two nations is further strengthened by what has been termed as the development of a “security-industrial complex.” India has turned out to be one of the biggest importers of Israeli military hardware, but the most lethal exports are not tanks and missiles but are intangible and pertain to surveillance. The application of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware on Indian journalists and activists is a very alarming development that suggests the shrinking of democratic space.

Journalist Siddharth Varadarajan of The Wire has stated that the technology developed to manage a population under occupation is now being used by the Indian state on its own citizens.

A new era of securitized governance

The so-called “Israeli Model” is a revolutionary departure from the original vision of a secular democracy in India, and instead embodies a highly securitized, majoritarian state that prioritizes control over consent. In Kashmir, the agenda is no longer framed in the context of reconciliation and political outreach, but instead in the context of demographic control, surveillance, and forced stability. The message is clear: minorities are to be treated not as interlocutors in politics, but as permanent security threats.

What is happens is week, as the two leaders come together to meet, is more than just business as usual in the world of international diplomacy. Instead, it is the overt consolidation of a political partnership based on militarised governance, digital surveillance, and the institutionalisation of collective punishment. It would appear that both India and Israel are collaborating together in order to refine and export a model of governance that prioritizes ethno-national dominance over pluralism, and security over civil liberties, setting a disturbing precedent for illiberal governance in the twenty-first century.

The post The “Zionist blueprint” in the Himalayas: analysing the India-Israel axis appeared first on HUM News English.

Congratulations Pakistan. Another tournament, another early exit. At this point the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) probably has a deal with Emirates. The travel looks well-planned; the cricket less so.

What makes this loss particularly hard to swallow is that nobody can point to bad luck or circumstance. Preparation was extensive. Tours were scheduled, conditions studied, matches played in bulk. Pakistan entered this World Cup arguably the most match-hardened side in the field. And still, with England wobbling at 35 for 3, needing just one more wicket to effectively end the chase, the bowling couldn't deliver. Not the rellu kattay spinners, not the quicks, not anyone. One wicket. That's what separated this side from a completely different conversation today.

A quick word on the conversation around the team. A section of Pakistani punditry appears more energised by tracking India’s trajectory than by analysing Pakistan’s own flaws. Entire debates revolve around another side’s potential stumble while uncomfortable questions at home are politely avoided. Honest scrutiny rarely trends, but it is the only currency that produces progress.

Back to the cricket. Harry Brook walked in under pressure, in a must-win game, at a position he doesn't normally bat, and produced a century. Not because conditions were perfect or the bowling was weak, he simply decided the situation required it and responded. That's not coaching. That's not preparation. That's just character. And right now, Pakistan are short of it. Pakistan have cricketers who excel when the script is familiar; when it shifts, hesitation appears almost immediately.

This isn't a new problem. For years a pattern has persisted where certain players, once established in the setup, plateau entirely. The drive that got them there quietly disappears. Playing for Pakistan becomes less about proving yourself and more about maintaining your position. When keeping your spot requires less effort than earning it, the urgency just dies. It shows in the body language, in the shot selection, in who's bowling during the critical overs and more importantly, who isn't.

There is also a recurring selection dilemma. Pakistan often persist with bowlers whose records look impressive in low-pressure phases but fade when the game tilts. The issue is less about one individual and more about a culture that rewards reputation over current impact. Systems that prioritise continuity without accountability eventually create comfort where competition should exist.

The deeper issue is that Pakistan don't seem to learn from what works elsewhere. Teams lose key players to retirement, rebuild without panic, and emerge stronger because their systems are solid enough to absorb the loss. The world doesn't pause it finds the next guy and gets on with it. Pakistan, by contrast, often treats certain names as irreplaceable, delaying succession planning until decline becomes obvious. Irreplaceability is rarely about talent it is about a lack of preparation for change.

The talent pool in this country is not the problem. It never has been. The problem is that talent without accountability produces players who are brilliant in flashes and absent when it counts. Until selection genuinely reflects form, until domestic performance carries real weight, and until poor tournaments lead to meaningful recalibration, preparation camps and bilateral schedules will only mask deeper problems.

Same time next tournament then. Same exit, same explanations, same promises. And somewhere, a pundit will already be talking about India.

The post The Preparation was Perfect. The Performance was Pakistan. appeared first on HUM News English.

In a recent intelligence-based operation (IBO) in Pishin district, Balochistan, security forces neutralised five TTP-linked Fitna al-Khawarij militants, including a suicide bomber, and prevented a planned attack on police lines and a cadet college. The operation recovered advanced equipment  M16A4 rifles, thermal imaging sights, night-vision goggles and satellite communication devices that markedly exceeds the standard inventory of earlier Balochistan or border militant groups.

These finds are not anomalies. Multiple operations in recent years have consistently documented similar high-end kit, signalling a shift from loosely organised hit-and-run tactics to coordinated, night-capable actions that resemble trained light infantry. Such materiel implies structured supply chains, external funding, dedicated training infrastructure and reliable rear-area sanctuaries patterns repeatedly traced to safe havens across the Afghan border where the Durand Line remains permeable despite bilateral commitments.

The pattern points to a deliberate attrition strategy, targeting connectivity nodes, sustaining public anxiety, and deterring investment in projects such as CPEC. The net effect is to lock Pakistan into perpetual internal security consumption rather than economic expansion.

The Azm-e-Istehkam framework is observed to integrate kinetic pressure with socio-economic programming and improved inter-agency coordination. Complementary observations from the operational record indicate that sustained pressure on financial pipelines including hawala routes and opaque charitable channels would be required to starve groups of operating capital. Similarly, the systematic presentation of evidence dossiers in international forums has shown potential to generate measurable accountability from enablers. Parallel efforts to contest extremist narratives in communities and online spaces are likewise recorded as necessary to reduce recruitment pipelines.

Internal critique

At the same time, a balanced reading of the data reveals domestic frictions that continue to blunt overall effectiveness. Inter-agency coordination, while improved, still experiences periodic gaps, development spending in frontier districts often arrives unevenly or with implementation delays, and governance shortfalls in some districts have left pockets of alienation that facilitate local facilitation networks. These internal variables do not negate the demonstrated competence of frontline forces but do illustrate why tactical successes have not yet translated into durable strategic compression of the threat.

Should these operational, financial and narrative lines of effort fail to evolve in tandem and at scale the strategic risks are measurable, accelerated economic opportunity costs from sustained investor hesitation, progressive normalisation of hybrid subversion, erosion of state legitimacy in affected regions, and the prospect of a self-reinforcing cycle in which each new generation of militants inherits better equipment and safer rear bases.

The data from Pishin and preceding engagements leave little room for ambiguity on this trajectory.

The post The shadow war in Balochistan: unmasking the nexus of proxy terror appeared first on HUM News English.

I’m not writing this out of emotion after one defeat. Pakistan losing to India hurts, but losses alone are not the problem. The real issue is how familiar this script has become tactical confusion, predictable selections and a team that looks unsure of itself when pressure rises.

Let’s be honest: this wasn’t just about skill gaps. It was about clarity.

From the outside, Pakistan looked reactive rather than assertive. India came out aggressively, scoring heavily in the early phase, and instead of countering with a decisive plan, Pakistan drifted. Bowling changes felt delayed, match-ups were questionable and, most importantly, valuable overs were left unused. In modern cricket, where margins are razor-thin, that isn’t a minor oversight it’s a strategic failure.

The introduction and usage of certain bowlers raised more questions than answers. If a team carries multiple bowling options but doesn’t trust them enough to complete their quotas, then the selection itself becomes questionable. Why overload the XI with all-rounders if, under pressure, you revert to only a few primary options? It creates a lineup that looks flexible on paper but indecisive in reality.

This brings me to the bigger concern: team balance. Pakistan’s obsession with “multi-dimensional players” has blurred roles within the side. Against weaker teams, this approach might survive. Against top-tier opposition like India, it gets exposed. When bowlers aren’t trusted to bowl and batters aren’t anchoring or accelerating with intent, the structure collapses. At that point, the opposition doesn’t even need extraordinary cricket they just need consistency.

Some argue that India’s superiority makes outcomes inevitable. There’s no denying their dominance in ICC events. Their systems are stronger, their players are conditioned for pressure and their tactical discipline is miles ahead. But accepting that Pakistan can’t compete is a dangerous mindset. Cricket history is full of underdogs winning through bold thinking and fearless execution. What we are seeing instead is hesitation a team unsure whether to rebuild or to hold onto the past.

And that hesitation is rooted in selection stagnation. For years, Pakistan have relied on the same core names in every major event, hoping that familiarity will eventually translate into results. It hasn’t. Dropping one or two individuals won’t magically transform the side, but refusing to introduce genuine competition sends the wrong message. When places in the XI feel guaranteed, urgency disappears.

Pakistan has one of the largest cricketing talent pools in the world. With over 250 million people and an unmatched street-level passion for the sport, there is no shortage of potential replacements. Yet tournament after tournament, we return to the same combination and expect a different outcome. That’s not loyalty that’s stagnation.

Another worrying trend is the mental approach in high-pressure games.

Against India, the body language often tells the story before the scoreboard does. When a team looks uncertain, the opposition senses it immediately. India’s batters played with freedom because Pakistan’s bowling lacked sustained pressure. Loose deliveries arrived regularly, allowing momentum to shift early. Once that happens, even average totals become match-winning because the chasing side carries the psychological burden.

The spin factor also exposed a planning gap. Conditions demanded smarter match-ups and a clearer understanding of when to attack and when to contain. India’s spinners looked like they had a defined blueprint, while Pakistan seemed to experiment on the go. That difference in preparation shows up not only in wickets but in how confidently each side controls the tempo of the game.

Fans, of course, react emotionally. Harsh criticism of individual players floods social media after every loss, and while some of it crosses the line, it reflects a deeper frustration the feeling that Pakistan cricket has stopped evolving. The golden period between 2007 and 2017 showed what was possible when bold decisions were made. Since then, the narrative has shifted toward safe choices and cautious management.

I’m not calling for a reckless purge or overnight miracles. Change in cricket is gradual, and no team becomes great simply by swapping a few names. But Pakistan must start somewhere. Even if the team struggles initially, introducing fresh faces and redefining roles sends a message that performance matters more than reputation.

Right now, Pakistan cricket feels caught between two eras unwilling to fully rebuild yet unable to replicate past success. That middle ground is dangerous because it creates the illusion of stability without real progress.

What this defeat should trigger is not another round of emotional blame, but a serious conversation about identity. Are we building a modern, tactically sharp side that can challenge the best, or are we clinging to nostalgia while hoping individual brilliance saves us?

So what's the path forward?

Pakistan needs to stop tinkering and start rebuilding with clarity.

First, define what each position in the XI actually requires genuine specialists, not all-rounders masking selection confusion. Introduce performance-based windows where new players get five or six matches to prove themselves, creating real competition instead of guaranteed spots. Separate leadership across formats to bring fresh tactical thinking. Most importantly, mandate that domestic performance actually matters no more selections based on reputation or potential alone.

 This requires institutional patience, which Pakistan cricket historically lacks. There will be difficult phases during transition, but the alternative is worse: continuing this cycle of predictable selections and predictable outcomes. The board must commit to a two or three-year vision and resist the urge to panic after every loss.

Success won't mean immediate trophies, but it will mean a team that enters tournaments with a clear identity, defined roles, and genuine belief rather than hope. Pakistan has the talent pool and the passion. What's missing is the courage to actually change course not superficially, but structurally. Until that happens, we'll keep writing the same analysis after every major defeat, wondering why nothing ever improves.

Because if nothing changes if the same tactical mistakes repeat and the same core continues without accountability then the results will remain the same. And Pakistan cricket, a team once known for fearless unpredictability, will continue to look predictable when it matters most.

The post Reputation vs results: Pakistan cricket’s uncomfortable truth appeared first on HUM News English.

Polling has closed across Bangladesh, marking the conclusion of a pivotal election the first general vote since the 2024 student-led uprising that ended Sheikh Hasina’s long rule. As counting continues, with final results expected by Friday morning, the outcome has produced neither the much-publicised “Gen Z democratic spring” lauded in parts of the Western media nor a decisive victory for radical forces. Instead, the contest has emerged as a sharply polarised two-horse race between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Tarique Rahman, and the Jamaat-e-Islami-led 11-party alliance, which includes the student-founded National Citizen Party (NCP).

Voter turnout reached roughly 48 per cent by mid-afternoon, up from 33 per cent at midday, widely regarded as reasonable given tight security, isolated incidents of unrest including a fatal clash in Khulna, and blasts in Gopalganj and Munshiganj, alongside a deeply polarised political environment. At the same time, voters participated in a referendum on the proposed “July Charter”, a constitutional reform package advanced by the Yunus interim government, the approval of which could cement significant changes to the political system.

The persistence of the ‘barred party’ narrative

The exclusion of the Awami League, once the dominant secular party, has fundamentally reshaped the electoral landscape. With its organisational structure dismantled, leadership in exile, and digital presence curtailed, the 2026 election became a binary contest between the Tarique Rahman-led BNP and the emerging “Green Crescent” alliance of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student-led partner, the NCP.

Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, closely aligned with New Delhi, left behind a political architecture that is now being challenged. High-profile arrests of senior intelligence officials accused of espionage for foreign interests, coupled with potential military and infrastructural adjustments such as the revival of Lalmonirhat Airbase and greater Sino-Pakistani defence cooperation, indicate a shift in regional alignment. For the region, these developments mark the emergence of a more multipolar Bangladesh.

Institutional consolidation of change

Yunus’s 2024 admission that Hasina’s removal was “meticulously designed” continues to resonate. While the July uprising was visibly driven by student mobilization, the deeper organisational support now evident in the Jamaat-NCP alliance provided the structural foundation for change.

The current vote, combined with the July Charter referendum, represents the institutional consolidation of that shift. By asking voters to approve constitutional reforms including a bicameral legislature and a 10-year prime ministerial term limit, the interim government seeks a public mandate to implement its reformist agenda. A “Yes” outcome would embed these reforms into the state framework while allowing competitive politics to continue under a newly structured system.

A bipolar contest: BNP vs. the Green Crescent

Pre-election surveys positioned the BNP as the frontrunner, with Tarique Rahman promising to accept results only if deemed fair. Rooted in nationalist conservatism, the party seeks to offer a stabilising alternative to centralised governance and the growing influence of Islamist actors.

Meanwhile, the Jamaat-e-Islami-led alliance, historically marginalised for its 1971 stance, has staged a notable resurgence. By combining seat-sharing arrangements with the NCP and blending youthful reformist messaging with established ideological networks, the alliance has converted grassroots discontent into organised electoral mobilisation. The so-called “Green Crescent” could translate this momentum into substantial parliamentary presence.

Regional implications

Bangladesh’s political realignment has drawn attention in Islamabad, particularly regarding renewed Karachi–Chittagong sea links and potential JF-17 cooperation, signalling growing bilateral opportunities. These developments reflect Dhaka’s shift towards a more independent, multipolar foreign policy approach, recalibrating long-standing regional dynamics.

A precarious transition

The exclusion of the Awami League in the name of reform carries risks. By narrowing secular representation, the interim arrangement has strengthened the most organised ideological forces. Early indications point to a possible BNP lead, alongside notable gains by the Jamaat alliance an outcome that could either restore competitive stability or deepen systemic fragility.

For Pakistan, the key lesson is clear: transitions that marginalise major political stakeholders often generate volatility rather than lasting renewal. At the same time, a westward-leaning Bangladesh presents diplomatic and strategic opportunities for Islamabad within an increasingly multipolar South Asia. The ballots have been cast, but the broader political story is only beginning.

The post Bangladesh 2026: elections, political shifts, and regional implications appeared first on HUM News English.

Bangladesh’s latest general election is not merely a contest between political parties. It is the first national test of a political order reshaped by the 2024 student-led uprising that forced long-time prime minister Sheikh Hasina from office.

The central question is not who wins.

It is whether protest can mature into governance, and whether a youth-driven political rupture can produce institutional stability.

A generation that forced a reckoning

Nearly 28 percent of Bangladesh’s population is between the ages of 15 and 29. It was this demographic that energised the demonstrations of 2024, challenging what many perceived as democratic stagnation, shrinking political space, and electoral manipulation. For this generation, politics is not abstract. It is tied to jobs, mobility, education, and dignity.

Interviews with first-time voters reflect a consistent theme: the uprising was not simply about removing a leader. It was about resetting the system. Demands range from employment opportunities and infrastructure repair to electoral transparency and institutional accountability.

But revolutions are emotionally coherent in a way elections rarely are. At the ballot box, idealism fragments into competing priorities.

A competitive election — with constraints

This election is widely described as Bangladesh’s first genuinely competitive national contest in over a decade. More than 2,000 candidates are vying for 300 parliamentary seats. Nearly 128 million citizens are registered to vote, almost half of them women. Yet the field remains structurally constrained.
The race is largely between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami. Hasina’s Awami League is not contesting the vote, following the suspension of its registration.

For some voters, this narrowing of ideological space is troubling. Critics argue that while the ballot may be competitive, the spectrum of political alternatives remains limited. The absence of a strong centrist reformist force leaves many young voters choosing between established structures rather than transformative platforms.

In other words, the system has opened — but it has not been rebuilt.

The shadow of security

The heavy deployment of security forces on the eve of voting underscores the fragility of the moment. Ballot boxes were inspected under armed guard. Army patrols were visible across urban centres. Tens of thousands of personnel were deployed to prevent unrest.

The message was clear: stability is non-negotiable.

For a country that experienced months of disruption after the 2024 protests — including economic strain on key industries — the state is acutely aware that legitimacy now depends on order. Yet excessive securitisation can itself become a reminder of democratic vulnerability. Elections meant to symbolise renewal must also feel safe — not staged.

The referendum within the election

Alongside parliamentary seats, voters are deciding on constitutional reforms: proposals for term limits, stronger judicial independence, structural changes to parliament, and safeguards for electoral neutrality.
These reforms are not cosmetic. They address the very grievances that animated the uprising.
If passed and implemented meaningfully, they could signal an institutional recalibration rather than a mere leadership change. If diluted, they risk reinforcing the cycle that triggered protest in the first place.

From street energy to institutional discipline

Movements thrive on moral clarity. Governance requires compromise. This is perhaps where Bangladesh’s Gen Z faces its most difficult transition. The emotional force that removed a long-standing prime minister must now translate into sustained civic engagement, policy literacy, and tolerance for gradual reform.

Young voters speak of jobs, infrastructure, climate resilience, and political freedom. These are not revolutionary slogans; they are administrative challenges. Delivering them demands bureaucratic competence and long-term planning — not only rhetorical momentum. The danger is not immediate regression. It is disillusionment. If expectations outrun institutional capacity, frustration could return — this time directed not at a single leader, but at the democratic process itself.

A test beyond one election

Bangladesh’s election is ultimately a referendum on democratic durability.

Can a country that experienced political contraction reopen its system without descending into instability?
Can a generation that mobilised through protest sustain its influence through participation?
Can competitive politics coexist with social cohesion?

Results are expected shortly. But the deeper verdict will unfold over years.
What began as a youth-driven uprising now confronts the slower, harder work of democratic consolidation.

Whether this moment becomes a genuine reset or merely a transition between elites will define Bangladesh’s political trajectory for the next decade.
The ballot has replaced the barricade.
The question is whether it can carry the same transformative weight.

The post Can Bangladesh’s Gen Z recast its democracy? appeared first on HUM News English.