Pakistan Still Remains Afghanistan’s Most Practical Trade Corridor

Regional connectivity has become one of the most contested conversations in South Asia, with every major player seeking influence through trade routes, port access and infrastructure diplomacy. Amid these competing narratives, one reality often gets overlooked - when it comes to Afghanistan’s transit needs, Pakistan continues to offer the most practical, cost-efficient and geographically logical route. This is not a political claim — it is a commercial and logistical fact shaped by geography, infrastructure and decades of established trade flows.

Pakistan’s strategic location provides Afghanistan with the shortest and most direct access to the sea. For more than forty years, the Karachi–Torkham and Karachi–Chaman corridors have served as the main arteries linking Afghan traders to global markets. These routes are supported by a fully developed logistics ecosystem that includes deep-sea ports, highways, customs facilities, warehousing chains and thousands of transport operators who understand the specific dynamics of cross-border trade. This maturity reduces time, cost and uncertainty — three critical factors for a landlocked economy.

Alternatives exist, but none match Pakistan’s combination of scale and efficiency. Iran’s Bandar Abbas route is functional but burdened by longer distances, higher freight costs and the unpredictability of sanctions. The much-publicized Chabahar corridor, backed by India, remains more of a political project than a commercially competitive pathway; its capacities and market traction are still limited. Northern routes through Central Asia involve multiple border crossings, harsh climatic conditions and infrastructure gaps that add both cost and delay.

Afghanistan may wish to diversify its transit options — a reasonable aspiration for any landlocked nation. However, diversification should not be conflated with cost effectiveness. Geography remains the defining factor. Pakistan’s ports are closest, its transit infrastructure is the most established, and its logistics sector is already aligned with Afghan commercial patterns.

Despite shifting regional politics and the emergence of competing narratives, Pakistan retains a natural advantage that no alternative route has yet been able to match. It remains Afghanistan’s most practical, cost-efficient and reliable corridor to the world — a fact that regional policymakers should recognize as they debate connectivity, competition and the future of trade in South Asia.

 

Indian Search for an Afghanistan Corridor—Bypassing Pakistan

For decades, India’s access to Afghanistan has been shaped—more accurately, restricted—by geography and politics. A quick look at the regional map explains the dilemma, India shares no border with Afghanistan, and the only direct land pathway runs through Pakistan. But with Islamabad refusing transit to Indian goods, New Delhi has to explore alternative corridors. Over time, these alternatives have evolved from theoretical proposals into functioning routes that reduce Pakistan’s leverage and expand India’s strategic reach. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/india-afghanistan-trade/

Pakistan Governance Crisis: IMF Has Only Stated the Obvious

The IMF’s Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Assessment is not a revelation; it is a mirror Pakistan’s ruling elites have avoided for decades. What the report exposes — institutional decay, unchecked discretion, opaque decision-making, and a culture of privilege — is neither new nor surprising. What is alarming is that Pakistan still requires an external lender to tell it what its own citizens have been shouting for years: corruption is not an aberration but the organizing principle of governance in this country.

The IMF’s findings cut through the official narratives of “reform”, “revival”, and “investment climate improvement”. At the heart of Pakistan’s economic paralysis lies a state captured by networks of political, bureaucratic, and business interests that thrive on informality and opacity. The tax system remains deliberately complex to create rent-seeking opportunities. SOEs continue bleeding because political appointees treat them as fiefdoms. The judiciary — hobbled by colonial-era laws — cannot enforce contracts, discouraging both investment and fair competition. And the powerful remain insulated from accountability through special exemptions, selective transparency, and politically driven discretion.

The IMF’s pointed reference to the Special Investment Facilitation Council is especially damning. By questioning its opaque functioning and the immunity granted to its officials, the report exposes the contradiction at the heart of Pakistan’s economic strategy: demanding investor confidence while institutionalizing unaccountable power. If the government had confidence in its own governance architecture, it would not have delayed publication of the report for months.

The Fund’s proposed reform agenda — transparency, parliamentary oversight of financial discretion, mandatory e-procurement, restructuring of anti-corruption bodies, and removal of preferential treatment — is basic housekeeping for any functioning state. Yet in Pakistan, these measures appear radical only because they directly threaten entrenched interests.

The tragedy is that Pakistan does not suffer from a lack of diagnosis; it suffers from a lack of will. Every governance failure highlighted in the GCDA has been documented for years, yet every government has chosen to preserve privilege over reform. The IMF can nudge, advise, and pressure — but it cannot manufacture political courage.

Pakistan’s elites may believe they can continue business as usual. The economy says otherwise. Time for denial is over.

Hawks Threatening Fragile Regional Peace

The recent explosion at a police station in Indian-held Kashmir — coming just days after deadly blasts in New Delhi and Pakistan — has once again raised concerns of malign actors working deliberately to destabilize an already volatile region. Whether the Kashmir incident was truly an accidental detonation, as Indian authorities insist, or part of a wider pattern, the cumulative effect is unmistakable: someone is adamant at keeping tensions high and diplomacy frozen.

According to officials, the Nowgam police-station blast occurred while forensic teams were examining confiscated explosives. The explanation may be technically sound, yet the timing is troubling. Three significant blasts across two countries within a single week cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the past, similar strings of incidents have conveniently emerged whenever even a hint of diplomatic calm seemed possible between India and Pakistan.

Beyond the security lens lies a broader geopolitical undercurrent. With Pakistan-Afghanistan transit trade suspended amid deteriorating ties between Islamabad and Kabul, India is making well-calculated moves to expand its footprint in the region. New Delhi’s push to position itself as a reliable trade partner for Afghanistan and Central Asia — backed notably by its renewed emphasis on the Chabahar corridor — is not accidental. It aligns neatly with Pakistan’s current vulnerabilities - fractured politics, troubled borders, and waning influence in a region it once dominated economically.

This is precisely the landscape in which hawks thrive. Their objective is not simply to trigger panic but to shape narratives that erode trust, fuel suspicion, and undermine any chance of sustained engagement. Each blast, each rumour, each accusation feeds into a cycle designed to keep India and Pakistan locked in strategic paralysis.

For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. Its economic revival hinges on rebuilding regional connectivity and reasserting itself as a natural trade and transit hub. But that requires stability — not only at home but across its borders. Repeated shocks, even when labelled “accidental,” play directly into the hands of those who want to see Pakistan isolated and reactionary.

If the region is to move forward, both New Delhi and Islamabad must resist being dragged by hawks into predictable confrontations. Joint investigations, fact-based assessments, and a willingness to insulate diplomacy from security incidents are essential. Otherwise, every spark — whether accidental or engineered — will continue to push South Asia closer to the brink.

At a moment when the region desperately needs calm, hawks are doing what they do best - threatening the fragile peace that holds it together.

Pakistan efficient in seeking debt, pathetic in boosting exports

If Pakistan ever launches a “national skill inventory,” debt-seeking deserves pride of place—right next to cricket and political speeches. Few nations can match our talent for locating, negotiating, and securing loans at record speed. In fact, if there were global rankings for borrowing, Pakistan would be a top-tier performer. Our only handicap is that medals can’t be pledged as collateral.

Over the last few years, we have turned debt acquisition into a disciplined craft. China rolls over funds before we even finish the request. Saudi Arabia extends deposits faster than we can print press releases thanking them. And commercial banks? They happily oblige—charging interest rates so high they should come with a health warning. But we take the money anyway, proudly calling it “stabilization.”

Yet when it comes to boosting exports—the one activity that could actually reduce our dependency—we become painfully sluggish. The same state that can negotiate billions overnight cannot help exporters ship a container on time. Infrastructure collapses, policies flip, energy costs skyrocket, and bureaucratic hurdles stretch on longer than IMF conditionalities.

Our export basket still resembles a museum catalogue: textiles, some rice, a bit of leather, and heroic claims that IT exports will one day rescue us. Meanwhile, competitors raced ahead years ago. Bangladesh became a garment giant, Vietnam turned into a global manufacturing hub, and India climbed the tech value chain. Pakistan? We perfected the art of writing desperate letters requesting “emergency support.”

We do not lack vision—only execution. We produce policies like an assembly line but refuse to implement even the simplest reforms. Instead, we remain obsessed with “new inflows,” as if the nation is a smartphone constantly running on low battery and eternally plugged into someone else’s charger.

It is the grand irony of our economic life: we can sell our pleas faster than we can sell our products. Friendly countries trust us with their money more than global markets trust our goods.

Until Pakistan learns to earn instead of borrow, we will remain trapped in this cycle—experts at seeking debt, amateurs at creating value.

Pak–Afghan trade standoff: Self-Inflicted Losses for Both Sides

The Pakistan–Afghanistan trade standoff is fast turning from a political dispute into an economic disaster. Both sides claim victory, yet both are bleeding revenue, jobs, and regional influence — while Iran and Central Asia quietly collect the gains.

The disruption in Pak–Afghan transit trade has become a contest of blame and bravado, but beneath the rhetoric lies a shared economic loss. Both countries are paying the price for political posturing.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has termed the situation a “blessing in disguise,” arguing that reduced cross-border movement will curb smuggling, terrorism, and market distortion. Yet, the security argument offers little comfort to exporters whose businesses now stand still.

Since mid-October, border crossings have remained closed, leaving thousands of trucks stranded and trade worth over US$45 million in limbo. Exporters of cement, textiles, footwear, fruits, and food items in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh are bearing the brunt. With more than 60 percent of Afghan imports already diverted to Iran, Central Asia, and Turkey, Pakistan risks losing both the Afghan and Central Asian markets.

For Afghanistan, Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar’s call to find alternate routes may project defiance and independence, but the costs are real. Afghan traders rely on Pakistan’s ports and goods, especially for food and medicines. Turning to Iran or Central Asia will lengthen routes and raise costs, pushing prices higher for Afghan consumers.

Meanwhile, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan quietly emerge as the real beneficiaries. Their ports and overland routes are gaining traction as Afghanistan diversifies its trade options.

In the end, neither Islamabad nor Kabul wins. The prolonged standoff damages trade, jobs, and investor confidence on both sides. What could have been a bridge of mutual economic gain has turned into another front of economic self-destruction.

The message is clear: political posturing may please leaders, but it impoverishes nations.

Twin Blasts, One Message: Terror Strikes India and Pakistan on Same Day

The recent terrorist attacks in both India and Pakistan on the same day have once again exposed how terrorism in South Asia is not just a domestic issue but a geopolitical tool. The eerie similarity in timing, targets, and messaging hints at a coordinated design — possibly the work of a single network or external orchestrator seeking to inflame regional tensions.

In Pakistan, militants struck security personnel and civilians alike, highlighting the persistent threat of regrouped extremist factions that exploit porous borders and instability in Afghanistan. For ordinary citizens already burdened by inflation and political disarray, such attacks deepen despair and erode confidence in the state’s security apparatus.

Across the border, India too was hit by near-simultaneous blasts, swiftly followed by political rhetoric blaming Pakistan. Yet the mirrored nature of both attacks raises unsettling questions. Are regional spoilers deliberately staging violence to keep Islamabad and New Delhi locked in hostility? Are unseen actors manipulating both nations for broader strategic gains?

Both countries have long traded accusations, but the uncomfortable truth is that terrorism has become an instrument in regional power games — sustained by ideological indoctrination, foreign funding, and political opportunism. Whenever prospects for dialogue or trade improvement appear, a major terror incident resets the equation, serving those who profit from perpetual enmity.

The victims are the same — ordinary citizens on both sides. Each attack reinforces division and fear, allowing extremists and opportunists to thrive. South Asia cannot afford to remain hostage to these cycles of violence and suspicion.

It is time for India and Pakistan to approach such tragedies with restraint and wisdom. A cooperative, fact-based investigation into the coordinated nature of these attacks could help expose the true perpetrators and prevent further bloodshed. Only through calm dialogue and shared resolve can both nations hope to deny terrorism the political space it continues to exploit.

Partnership Between Two Occupiers

The newly signed India–Israel defense treaty is not just a strategic agreement; it is a declaration of shared ideology between two occupying powers. It symbolizes the convergence of two nations that have built their modern identities through control, suppression, and justification of domination — one in Palestine, the other in Kashmir.

This alliance comes at a time when Israel stands accused of genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Global outrage is mounting, yet India has chosen this moment to embrace Tel Aviv more openly than ever. The message is clear: New Delhi now values military advantage and strategic visibility over moral credibility.

Once, India’s foreign policy drew strength from its anti-colonial roots and its historic commitment to freedom struggles. It stood with the oppressed — from African liberation movements to the Palestinian cause. That era is gone. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s diplomacy has shed moral caution for ideological affinity. The new partnership formalizes years of covert cooperation in defense, intelligence, and cyberwarfare — all underpinned by a common political psychology.

Zionism and Hindutva, though born in different contexts, share a majoritarian worldview: both cast national identity in religious terms, both view minorities as internal adversaries, and both justify occupation as self-defense. The defense treaty, therefore, is not just about weapons and technology; it is a public endorsement of this shared ideological DNA.

Regionally, the implications are grave. Pakistan will interpret it as an existential provocation. Bangladesh will face a diplomatic dilemma, caught between public sympathy for Palestine and dependence on India. South Asia’s post-colonial spirit of solidarity is eroding, replaced by an era of militarized rivalry and ideological segregation.

Inside India, the pact sends a chilling message to nearly 200 million Muslims. For decades, India’s symbolic support for Palestine offered reassurance of secular balance. That pretense has now vanished. The new India appears comfortable aligning with those who mirror its own majoritarian instincts.

In the end, the India–Israel alliance binds together two occupiers — one subjugating a people under siege, the other suppressing dissent at home. Power may win them weapons and allies, but it cannot cleanse the moral stain of occupation. Nations that mistake domination for destiny often discover that empires fall not from weakness, but from the weight of their own injustice

 

“Tariff Fassad” Initiated by Trump May Trigger Global Meltdown

The global economy today resembles a pressure cooker — silently building steam, waiting for the smallest policy misstep to explode. The “Tariff Fassad” initiated by US president, Donald Trump during is not an isolated episode but the beginning of a dangerous shift toward economic nationalism. Its aftershocks are now resurfacing as governments across continents flirt with protectionism, weaponized trade, and retaliatory tariffs. If not checked, this confrontation could unleash consequences far worse than “Subprime Loan Crisis of 2008”.

Unlike 2008 — which was rooted in irresponsible lending and Wall Street malpractice — this crisis is being fueled by deliberate political choices. Tariffs have distorted supply chains, raised input costs, and crippled export-oriented economies. From Chinese manufacturers to European automakers and Asian electronics exporters, uncertainty is eroding confidence. Global trade volumes are shrinking, and markets are reacting nervously.

The irony is striking, while tech giants continue to report record profits and soaring valuations, this growth stands on a very fragile foundation. Analysts are calling it a “Tech Bubble”, and not without reason. When one segment of the market inflates disproportionately banks, small businesses, and industrial shares come under pressure, it is not growth — it is imbalance. Traditional sectors are bleeding, consumer demand is weakening, and yet Big Tech is being priced as if the world economy is booming. This is speculation masquerading as optimism.

Banks, the backbone of any financial system, are showing worrying signs. Rising interest rates, tightening liquidity, and increasing defaults in trade-dependent industries have started to appear on their balance sheets. Loan growth has slowed, non-performing assets are rising, and confidence among lenders is eroding. Smaller financial institutions are especially at risk as their exposure to fragile sectors grows unchecked. This may not be a sudden collapse like Lehman Brothers — it could be a gradual suffocation, where trust quietly disappears from the system.

Emerging economies are caught in a chokehold. Currencies are under pressure, foreign exchange reserves are being depleted to manage imports, and inflation is creeping upward. For countries dependent on exports or imported raw materials, Trump-style tariff aggression has become an economic nightmare. Meanwhile, global institutions like the WTO and IMF remain spectators — issuing statements rather than solutions.

Markets do not collapse only due to bad economics; they collapse when confidence dies. Tariff wars, geopolitical brinkmanship, and speculative bubbles are collectively eroding that confidence. The threat today is not of a market crash alone — it is of a systemic disintegration of trust, credit, and cooperation.

The world must realize that economic wars have no winners. If this tariff-driven arrogance continues, the global economy will not fall off a cliff — it will slide slowly into chaos. Policymakers still have time to act, but the clock is ticking fast.

 

Why Pak-Afghan Conflict Remains Unresolved?

The conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains unresolved because it is rooted in a mix of historical disputes, mutual mistrust, and competing security interests that have persisted for decades. Despite cultural, religious, and economic linkages, both nations continue to view each other with suspicion rather than cooperation.

At the heart of the problem lies the Durand Line, drawn by the British in 1893 and inherited by Pakistan after independence. Afghanistan has never formally recognized it as an international border, claiming it divides the Pashtun population. Pakistan, however, considers the frontier legally settled. This disagreement has become a symbol of deeper political and ethnic tensions.

The Pashtun question adds another layer of complexity. The tribes on both sides share linguistic and familial ties, but political narratives have often turned these affinities into instruments of rivalry. Pakistan fears Afghan nationalism could spill over its borders, while Kabul perceives Pakistan’s involvement as interference in its internal affairs.

Security concerns have long overshadowed diplomacy. Since the Soviet invasion of 1979, Pakistan has played a key role in Afghan affairs, hosting millions of refugees and supporting various political factions. Yet, both sides accuse each other of harboring hostile groups — Pakistan blames Afghanistan for sheltering the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), while Kabul accuses Islamabad of backing insurgents. This cycle of allegations has eroded trust.

The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 initially raised hopes for stability, but their refusal to recognize the Durand Line and restrain TTP activities has renewed friction. Meanwhile, regional players — including India, Iran, China, and the United States — continue to shape dynamics that complicate bilateral understanding.

For lasting peace, both countries must shift from blame to dialogue, strengthen border management, and build economic interdependence through trade and connectivity. The Pak-Afghan relationship should not remain hostage to history; instead, it should evolve into a partnership anchored in mutual respect and regional stability.

Only through sustained diplomacy, trust-building, and shared development goals can Pakistan and Afghanistan transform a troubled past into a cooperative future.

 

 

SAARC: Awakening a Sleeping Might

Reviving the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is not a romantic ideal; it is a strategic necessity. The global order is shifting toward regional blocs that consolidate economic and political influence — from ASEAN and the EU to the African Continental Free Trade Area. South Asia cannot afford to remain fragmented when its combined GDP already exceeds US$4 trillion and its population represents a quarter of the world. A dormant SAARC limits each member’s bargaining power, constrains trade diversification, and weakens collective resilience against climate and security threats.

The process of revival begins with institutional restructuring. SAARC’s Secretariat in Kathmandu must be transformed from a symbolic coordination office into an empowered regional policy hub. This requires financial autonomy, a merit-based staffing system, and authority to monitor and evaluate implementation.

Member states should establish a SAARC Development Fund, enabling cross-border infrastructure, health, and education projects independent of political disruptions. Regular ministerial meetings, even at sub-regional levels, can sustain policy momentum when summits stall.

Economic integration remains the most practical catalyst for reactivation. South Asia’s intra-regional trade potential is estimated at over US$100 billion, yet remains trapped below 6 percent of total commerce.

The complete operationalization of the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) must be prioritized, coupled with the removal of non-tariff barriers and the adoption of digital customs and payment systems.

A regional e-commerce and logistics framework could integrate small and medium enterprises across borders, reducing trade costs and increasing competitiveness.

Energy cooperation offers another powerful unifying platform. Hydropower trade among Nepal, Bhutan, and India, and gas pipeline connectivity involving Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan could underpin mutual interdependence.

A “SAARC Energy Corridor,” integrating electricity grids and renewable-energy investment, would not only enhance supply security but also establish climate-friendly growth foundations.

People-to-people diplomacy is equally critical. Academic partnerships, student mobility programs, media collaboration, and cultural exchanges can foster regional consciousness that transcends political disputes.

Civil-society engagement and private-sector participation should complement intergovernmental dialogue.

The long-term sustainability of SAARC lies not in bureaucratic communiqués but in public ownership of the regional project.

Pakistan’s role in this reawakening is pivotal. Geographically positioned at the crossroads of South, Central, and West Asia, Islamabad can act as a natural bridge for trade and energy corridors.

Reframing its regional engagement from security-centric to economic-centric diplomacy could reposition Pakistan as a constructive stakeholder in regional stability.

Advocating connectivity rather than confrontation would strengthen its diplomatic leverage and economic prospects simultaneously.

Ultimately, SAARC’s revival depends on political will — not from external actors but from within South Asia itself. The logic is simple: collective prosperity is indivisible.

Competing regional architectures cannot substitute for the historical, cultural, and economic interdependence that binds SAARC members.

By re-energizing this sleeping might, South Asia can finally transition from a region of unrealized potential to one of shared progress.

The moment calls for leadership that recognizes cooperation as power, not concession. SAARC’s awakening will not occur overnight, but without the first deliberate steps, South Asia risks remaining a fragmented geography rather than a united economic community.

Why SAARC Lost Its Way?

When the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985, it represented a rare regional consensus in a politically fragmented subcontinent. The founding declaration emphasized collective self-reliance, mutual assistance, and the pursuit of shared prosperity. For a region holding nearly one-fourth of humanity, the potential was extraordinary. Yet, after four decades, SAARC stands largely dormant — a victim of geopolitical rivalry and institutional inertia rather than structural failure.

SAARC’s vision was ambitious but achievable: foster economic, social, and cultural cooperation to enhance the quality of life in member states. However, the trajectory of the organization was quickly derailed by the deep-rooted political mistrust between India and Pakistan. The unresolved Kashmir dispute, periodic border tensions, and competing security narratives transformed the platform into a casualty of bilateral hostility. Since the 2014 Kathmandu Summit, SAARC’s high-level meetings have been suspended indefinitely, leaving the secretariat in Kathmandu underutilized and politically irrelevant.

The cost of this dormancy has been immense. Intra-regional trade among SAARC members remains below 6 percent of total trade — the lowest for any comparable regional bloc. Transport corridors, energy-sharing projects, and digital connectivity initiatives have been stalled. The absence of a collective policy voice has left South Asia peripheral in major global economic and climate negotiations.

Comparatively, ASEAN and the European Union began with modest frameworks centered on trade facilitation and economic complementarity, eventually evolving into influential regional institutions. Their success was not rooted in political harmony but in the understanding that economic interdependence can temper political rivalry. SAARC, unfortunately, allowed politics to precede economics, forfeiting the very logic that drives successful regionalism.

The failure to institutionalize decision-making has also weakened SAARC’s resilience. The Secretariat operates with limited resources and minimal authority. Summits and ministerial meetings, which should function as policy engines, have instead become arenas for diplomatic signaling. Moreover, the proliferation of alternative regional frameworks — notably BIMSTEC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — reflects the shifting preferences of member states toward arrangements perceived as more functional or geopolitically advantageous.

Yet, it would be incorrect to describe SAARC as obsolete. The organization retains a symbolic and functional foundation that can be reactivated. Its network of specialized bodies in agriculture, environment, health, and disaster management continues to operate, albeit at suboptimal capacity. More importantly, the shared challenges of climate vulnerability, energy security, and regional inequality demand precisely the kind of coordinated response that only a platform like SAARC can provide.

The need is not to abandon SAARC but to reimagine it — as a mechanism of pragmatic regionalism rather than political posturing. The first step toward revival is to acknowledge why it failed: not because its goals were unrealistic, but because national egos overshadowed collective rationality. South Asia’s sleeping might remain potent; it only awaits political maturity to awaken.

Bridging the Divide: Pakistan and Taliban Need Dialogue, Not Confrontation

The relationship between Pakistan’s ruling regime and the Taliban stands at a delicate crossroads. Bound by geography, faith, and shared history, the two sides also carry layers of mistrust accumulated over decades of shifting alliances and conflicting expectations. In recent years, political statements, security operations, and media narratives have widened this gap further. Yet, beneath the surface lies an undeniable truth — their destinies remain intertwined. To stabilize the region, both must replace suspicion with structured dialogue, and confrontation with cooperation. Military responses may suppress symptoms, but only intellectual engagement can address the root causes of misunderstanding.

The first major misunderstanding arises from security concerns. Pakistan’s authorities often believe that the Taliban have not taken adequate measures against elements of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who continue to operate from Afghan territory. On the other hand, the Taliban view Pakistan’s cross-border operations and frequent border closures as violations of Afghan sovereignty. Both sides see each other’s actions through a defensive lens. A structured security dialogue — focusing on intelligence coordination, cross-border communication, and non-interference — can help bridge these perceptions and restore mutual confidence.

The second area of friction involves economic and trade relations. The Taliban leadership frequently accuses Pakistan of using trade controls as leverage, while Pakistan expresses concern over smuggling, informal trade routes, and foreign currency outflows. These differences have converted economic engagement into a tool of pressure rather than cooperation. A transparent, rules-based mechanism for transit trade and financial transactions could turn the economic relationship into a stabilizing force. When trade and transport flow smoothly, political tensions tend to ease naturally.

The third and perhaps most sensitive dimension is ideological understanding. Many in Pakistan interpret the Taliban’s policies solely through a security framework, while the Taliban often perceive Pakistan’s government as too close to Western interests. These views overlook the nuanced realities on both sides. Constructive academic and religious exchanges, involving scholars and opinion leaders, could help generate trust and empathy. Mutual respect for each side’s national priorities is essential for regional harmony.

Peace cannot be dictated by military power or external persuasion; it must evolve from within the region itself. Pakistan and the Taliban must recognize that lasting stability demands open communication, patience, and political maturity. Excluding foreign influences and engaging in honest dialogue will help transform mutual suspicion into cooperation. The region has paid too high a price for conflict — it is time to invest in understanding. Dialogue, not deterrence, is the true foundation of peace between Pakistan and the Taliban.

 

Stock Market Investors: Sad One Day, Jubilant the Next

The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) continues to mirror the country’s volatility — euphoric one day, anxious the next. Despite its recent upward trajectory, warnings of a potential correction were largely ignored. When the inevitable dips arrived, they rattled investors, particularly amid heavy selling by mutual funds.

The start of the week was a rollercoaster. On Monday, the benchmark index plunged by 4,600 points as rising border tensions with Afghanistan, political instability in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and violent protests in Punjab weighed heavily on sentiment. Yet, within 24 hours, the market staged an extraordinary rebound — gaining nearly 7,000 points on Tuesday and recovering most of its earlier losses.

According to Yousuf M. Farooq, Director of Research at Chase Securities, the rebound was driven by an overnight easing of domestic unrest and improving signals on the Afghanistan front. His observation underscores how sentiment-driven and headline-sensitive the market remains, reacting more to news flow than to fundamentals.

Analysts agree that valuations still look attractive, with several sectors trading below their intrinsic worth. However, they also caution that risks persist. Any slippage on the current account or fiscal front could quickly reverse the recent gains. The macroeconomic environment remains fragile, and the market’s wild swings are a reminder that stability in the PSX cannot be achieved without stability in policy and politics alike.

In short, the stock market’s mood swings are less about numbers and more about nerves. Until investors see a consistent policy direction and improved economic fundamentals, the PSX will continue to oscillate — keeping investors, as always, sad one day and jubilant the next.

Pakistan-IMF: Partnership Built on Dependence

In my recent reflections on Pakistan’s economic dilemmas, one truth stands out — our relationship with the IMF has never been economic, it has always been political. What began as assistance for growth soon turned into a calculated trap of dependency. The IMF didn’t reform Pakistan’s economy; it reprogrammed its sovereignty.

Pakistan’s long association with the IMF has never truly been about stability; it has been about control. What started in the name of “support” evolved into a vicious cycle of borrowing, serving both foreign powers and the ruling elite at home.

During the Cold War, IMF lending was less about economics and more about strategy. Pakistan’s geography made it a convenient pawn in Washington’s global game of containment. Loans came with neatly crafted “conditionalities,” but the real aim was to keep Pakistan’s economy tethered to Western influence.

The much-advertised structural reforms were cosmetic. Land reforms never touched the feudal elite, tax reforms spared the powerful, and privatization transferred wealth to cronies. Instead of fostering industrial growth, policies promoted consumer industries — assembling fast-moving consumer goods rather than producing capital or export goods. The result: an illusion of progress built on imports and consumption.

With every bailout, the dependency mindset grew stronger. The IMF was always available, and policymakers were always willing. A belief took root — that salvation lies in foreign help, not self-reliance.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1970s, Pakistan was declared a “frontline ally.” The US poured in funds and influence, effectively turning Pakistan’s economy into a Cold War instrument. IMF support neatly aligned with Washington’s geopolitical interests, ensuring compliance rather than reform.

Over the decades, this external control merged with internal manipulation. Regime changes — military or civilian — often bore foreign fingerprints. Today, the IMF stands not as a partner in reform but as a symbol of economic subservience — proof that Pakistan’s journey from aid to autonomy remains unfinished.

Pakistani Policies Turning Taliban Foe

The unraveling Pakistan–Taliban relationship highlights the limits of old security doctrines in a changing regional order.

When the Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021, Pakistan hoped for a friendly neighbor and a stable frontier. Four years later, that optimism has faded. Relations have soured, trust has eroded, and the Taliban’s growing warmth toward India signals how far Islamabad’s Afghan policy has drifted from reality.

Pakistan’s once-comfortable relationship with the Taliban is deteriorating — not because of ideology, but because of Islamabad’s own policy. What was once hailed as “strategic depth” is now fast becoming a strategic setback.

For decades, Pakistan believed that supporting the Taliban would ensure border security and limit Indian influence. But since the group’s return to power, those assumptions have collapsed.

Instead of cooperation, Pakistan now faces increasing hostility - frequent border clashes, defiant statements from Kabul, and a resurgent Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) operating from Afghan soil.

The Taliban’s visible tilt toward India is a symptom of Islamabad’s stance. Pakistan has chosen pressure over diplomacy — closing key crossings, threatening to expel Afghan refugees, and publicly accusing Kabul of harboring militants.

These measures have not subdued the Taliban; they have driven them closer to New Delhi, which offers humanitarian aid and political legitimacy without direct interference.

The irony is stark. Pakistan, once the Taliban’s strongest backer, now finds itself isolated, while India — long regarded as an adversary in Afghan affairs — is quietly re-establishing presence in Kabul. The Taliban, in turn, are using this outreach to project independence and resist external dictates.

Islamabad’s Afghan policy remains trapped in outdated security thinking, viewing Kabul solely through the prism of control.

Unless Pakistan recalibrates its approach — replacing coercion with constructive engagement — it risks losing whatever influence it still retains. The “strategic depth” doctrine that once shaped policy has now turned dangerously shallow.

 

Is Pakistan Being Pushed into a ‘US Proxy War’ in Afghanistan?

Behind the new wave of border clashes may lie an old script — one written in Washington and played out in Islamabad and Kabul. Has Pakistan once again been cast in the role of America’s proxy?

The recent spike in Pak-Afghan border tensions has once again pushed the region to the edge of confrontation. Reports suggest that armed militants crossing from Afghanistan have attacked Pakistani security posts, prompting Islamabad’s “severe retaliation.” Yet, beneath the visible smoke of gunfire lies a far more intricate and disturbing reality — one that hints at the shadow of global power politics.

Following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Washington appeared to have lost its strategic foothold in the region. The Taliban’s refusal to hand over the Bagam Air Base — once a vital hub of American military operations — was not merely a symbolic rejection; it was a strategic rebuff. The superpower lost a vantage point near China, Iran, and Central Asia.

It is no coincidence that within months of that refusal, Afghanistan began facing renewed instability, and Pakistan started encountering an inexplicable surge in cross-border attacks.

My hypothesis is simple: when Washington cannot re-enter Afghanistan directly, it may seek to create circumstances that justify intervention. The most effective way to do that is to provoke conflict. The pattern fits. Anonymous “operators” — possibly non-state actors with advanced intelligence capabilities — carry out attacks inside Pakistan, inviting a retaliatory strike. The resulting escalation allows the US to portray the region as unstable and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a “global threat.” A familiar pretext for yet another intervention is thus created.

Ironically, Pakistan — which has already paid an enormous price in blood and economy during the first “War on Terror” — now risks being drawn into another one, this time as an unwilling participant in someone else’s geopolitical chessboard. The tragedy is that Islamabad still struggles to draw a clear line between its national interests and Washington’s regional ambitions. History, it seems, is repeating itself — and not for the better.

What complicates matters further is the deep mistrust between Islamabad and Kabul. The Taliban government, already under economic sanctions and political isolation, accuses Pakistan of toeing the American line. Pakistan, on the other hand, blames Afghanistan for harboring militants of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Yet neither side seems willing to see how external forces might be manipulating both.

The strategic question Pakistan must ask is: Whose war are we fighting this time? If recent cross-border provocations are indeed part of a larger plan to destabilize the region, Islamabad must avoid taking the bait. A measured, intelligence-based response — not blind retaliation — is the need of the hour. Pakistan’s security cannot depend on reaction; it must rest on foresight.

The lesson from the past two decades is painfully clear. Every time Pakistan has fought on behalf of someone else, it has lost — in lives, in reputation, and in internal cohesion. If history is repeating itself, the least we can do is refuse to play the same role again.

Saudi Support to Pakistan Beyond Diplomacy

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan share a relationship that is often described as “brotherly” rather than merely diplomatic. Rooted in faith, history, and mutual respect, the Kingdom’s support to Pakistan over the decades has been nothing short of exceptional. At every critical juncture—from wars and economic crises to natural disasters—Riyadh has stepped forward with generosity, affirming its role as Islamabad’s most trusted partner.

Historical Foundations of Brotherhood

Saudi Arabia was among the very first nations to recognize Pakistan after its independence in 1947. Since then, ties have been nurtured on shared Islamic values and common aspirations. The relationship quickly matured into a strategic alliance, with both nations backing each other in times of need. During Pakistan’s wars in 1965 and 1971, Riyadh extended strong political and moral support. Similarly, Pakistan stood firmly with the Kingdom during regional crises, cementing trust that has endured for generations.

Financial Lifelines in Times of Need

Perhaps the most visible manifestation of Saudi support has been on the economic front. Pakistan, a developing country often facing fiscal and balance-of-payment challenges, has repeatedly found in Riyadh a source of immediate relief.

In recent years alone, the Kingdom deposited billions of dollars in Pakistan’s State Bank reserves, providing crucial breathing space at a time when international institutions were either hesitant or demanded painful reforms. Oil supplies on deferred payment have cushioned Pakistan’s import bill, helping stabilize inflation and energy costs. Unlike Western lenders, Saudi assistance has rarely been tied to political or structural conditions, making it uniquely generous and timely.

This pattern is not new. Since the 1970s, Riyadh has offered concessional oil facilities, long-term loans, and grants to help Pakistan weather external shocks. Time and again, Saudi Arabia has proven to be Pakistan’s financial first responder.

Energy Security and Investment Potential

Saudi Arabia has also played a key role in Pakistan’s energy security. Its oil facilities have ensured that Pakistan’s economy continues to function even during periods of global energy volatility. Looking ahead, Riyadh has expressed strong interest in investing in Pakistan’s energy infrastructure, particularly in the proposed multibillion-dollar Gwadar Oil Refinery. Such projects not only promise to reduce Pakistan’s dependence on imported petroleum products but also strengthen its role as a regional energy hub.

Humanitarian Generosity and People to People Impact

The Kingdom’s generosity extends far beyond state to state transactions. During Pakistan’s worst humanitarian crises, including the devastating 2005 earthquake and the catastrophic floods of 2010 and 2022, Saudi Arabia was among the largest donors of aid. Relief goods, medical teams, and financial contributions directly helped millions of displaced and vulnerable citizens.

Saudi-funded development projects—ranging from schools and hospitals to water supply schemes—have left a lasting impact on communities across Pakistan. These initiatives reflect Riyadh’s recognition that real support lies not just in financial transfers but in uplifting the quality of life of ordinary people.

Strategic and Defense Cooperation

Defense and security cooperation remain another cornerstone of the relationship. Pakistani military personnel have long been involved in training Saudi armed forces, a partnership that has enhanced Riyadh’s defense capacity while deepening trust between the two establishments.

At the diplomatic level, Saudi Arabia has consistently stood by Pakistan on sensitive issues, particularly Kashmir. By lending its political weight to Islamabad’s positions at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other global platforms, Riyadh has amplified Pakistan’s voice in the international arena.

Mutuality of Interests

Although Saudi Arabia’s exceptional support to Pakistan often takes the spotlight, the relationship is not one-sided. Pakistan has consistently extended manpower, expertise, and solidarity to the Kingdom. Millions of Pakistani workers in Saudi Arabia are a vital part of the Kingdom’s development, especially under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030. Their contributions not only drive Saudi progress but also sustain Pakistan’s economy through remittances that exceed billions of dollars annually.

In times of regional tension, Pakistan has also stood firmly with Riyadh, whether by providing military expertise or diplomatic support. This reciprocity underscores the fact that the partnership is built on mutual respect and shared strategic interests.

Looking Toward the Future

As the global order undergoes transformation, the Saudi-Pakistan relationship is poised to enter a new phase. Vision 2030, which seeks to diversify the Saudi economy beyond oil, opens new avenues for Pakistani professionals, investors, and skilled workers. Pakistan, with its youthful population and strategic location at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, remains a natural partner for Riyadh’s long-term ambitions.

Furthermore, investment in renewable energy, technology, agriculture, and infrastructure can redefine the contours of this relationship. What has historically been dominated by financial and defense cooperation is now broadening into sectors that will drive growth in the 21st century.

Exceptional Saudi support to Pakistan is not merely about financial bailouts or humanitarian aid. It is the reflection of a bond rooted in shared faith, tested by history, and strengthened by mutual benefit. For Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been a dependable partner in times of uncertainty. For Riyadh, Islamabad remains a steadfast ally with strategic depth and human capital.

As both nations look ahead, their challenge is to transform this exceptional support into sustainable, future-oriented cooperation. By building on decades of trust, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can not only uplift their own people but also set an example of solidarity and resilience for the wider Muslim world.

 

President Trump Gaza Belongs to Palestinians

US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet leaders and officials from multiple Muslim-majority countries on Tuesday and discuss the situation in Gaza, which has been under a mounting assault from Washington's ally Israel.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that Trump will hold a multilateral meeting with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan.

Axios reported Trump will present the group with a proposal for peace and post-war governance in Gaza.

In addition to freeing hostages and ending the war, Trump is expected to discuss US plans around an Israeli withdrawal and post-war governance in Gaza, without Hamas involvement, according to Axios.

Washington wants Arab and Muslim countries to agree to send military forces to Gaza to enable Israel's withdrawal and to secure funding for transition and rebuilding programs, Axios reported.

Trump will address the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, a day after dozens of world leaders gathered at the United Nations to embrace a Palestinian state, a landmark diplomatic shift nearly two years into the Gaza war that faces fierce resistance from Israel and the United States.

The nations said a two-state solution was the only way to achieve peace, but Israel said the recognition of a Palestinian state was a reward to extremism.

Israel's assault on Gaza since October 2023 has killed tens of thousands, internally displaced Gaza's entire population, and set off a starvation crisis. Multiple rights experts, scholars and a UN inquiry assessed it amounts to genocide.

Israel calls its actions self-defense and has also bombed Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Qatar during the course of its war in Gaza.

Trump had promised a quick end to the war in Gaza, but a resolution remains elusive eight months into his term.

In February, Trump proposed a US takeover of Gaza and a permanent displacement of Palestinians from there. It was labeled as an "ethnic cleansing" proposal by rights experts and the United Nations. Forcible displacement is illegal under international law. Trump cast the plan as a re-development idea.

What options US can exercise if Afghans refuse to handover Bagram Air Base?

If Afghans refuse to handover Bagram Air Base back to the United States, Washington is likely to face a serious strategic dilemma. The response will likely depend on how far the super power is willing to push its military and political leverage in the region. Some of the likely options are:

1. Diplomatic Pressure

The first option would be to apply diplomatic pressure on the Taliban government, possibly through Qatar or Pakistan as intermediaries. The US may frame Bagram’s access as essential for counterterrorism monitoring, and push for a limited presence under international arrangements rather than outright US control.

2. Economic and Sanctions Leverage

If diplomacy fails, Washington could use financial levers that include:

Tightening sanctions on Taliban leaders.

Blocking international recognition of the Taliban government.

Cutting off humanitarian exemptions or aid that Afghanistan relies on.

This would make Kabul’s refusal costlier.

3. Regional Partnerships

The US might deepen military partnerships with neighbors instead. For instance:

Expanding use of bases in Central Asia (though Russia and China will resist this).

Strengthening presence in the Persian Gulf (Qatar, UAE).

Increasing over-the-horizon operations using drones and satellites.

This would reduce dependency on Bagram, though at a higher logistical cost.

4. Covert Operations

If Washington views Bagram as critical for counterterrorism, it could resort to covert methods—arming rival Afghan groups, intelligence penetration, or even destabilization strategies to pressure the Taliban into concessions.

5. Accept and Adapt

Though difficult, the US may accept that Afghanistan is now firmly outside its reach and adapt by monitoring from afar. This would reflect Washington’s reluctance to re-engage militarily in Afghanistan after two decades of war.