Mamdani Victory Signals Political Shift

The election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City represents more than a personal milestone—it signals a broader shift in civic and political sensibility. In choosing a candidate who openly challenged entrenched alliances tied to Wall Street, the oil-and-gas industry and the military-industrial complex, New Yorkers have sent a message: we want governance that prioritizes people over power, communities over cronies.

Mamdani’s victory is historic. He becomes the city’s first Muslim and first South-Asian mayor, and one of its youngest. Yet the significance goes deeper: his campaign was grounded in grassroots mobilization, small-donor financing, and an agenda built on affordability, public transit, housing justice and social inclusion. In doing so, it rejected the status quo of big money and big influence.

For those of us who hope to see the next generation of senators and congress-members break from the usual patronage of oil companies, Wall Street and military contractors, this election offers a template. It confirms that voters are not powerless; they can elect leaders who owe their mandate to citizens, not to corporate-political machines. The challenge now is to extend that mindset beyond city hall to state houses and Capitol Hill.

Yet caveats abound. Victory in a campaign is one thing; governing effectively is another. New York is mired in debt, facing infrastructure decay, deep inequality and institutional inertia. Mamdani must now translate bold rhetoric into concrete delivery. Housing affordability, free or cheap transit, meaningful reforms—all these will test whether the electoral surge becomes sustainable policy.

Equally important is governing for the whole city. If a leader emerges as a polarizer, the mandate risks fracturing. To hold together a diverse coalition, Mamdani will need to build bridges across boroughs, racial and economic divides, ethnic and religious communities. A commitment to social justice does not exempt one from the need for pragmatic consensus-building.

In short, congratulations, Mayor-elect Mamdani. Your win matters. It matters because it signals a possible turning point—a moment when voters said yes to different leadership, yes to accountability, yes to a politics less beholden to big-money interests. For those watching across the country, prepare for the next phase: not simply new names in the Senate or House, but new models of representation. Replace the old cronies with leaders purely accountable to the public. That is the promise. Now comes the work to fulfil it.

 

Trump to cut funds for NYC if Mamdani wins

US President Donald Trump endorsed former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo for mayor of New York City on Monday and threatened to hold back federal funds to the city if Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the mayoral election on Tuesday.

Trump, a Republican who has offered frequent commentary on the New York mayoral election, injected himself further into the race by crossing party lines to support Cuomo over Mamdani and the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, who trails badly in public opinion polls in the heavily Democratic city.

Cuomo, a longtime stalwart in the Democratic Party, is running as an independent after losing to Mamdani in the Democratic primary.

Tuesday's New York City election has been closely watched nationally as one that could help shape the image of the Democratic Party as it seeks its identity in opposition to Trump. Mamdani, 34, a self-described democratic socialist who is leading Cuomo in the polls, has energized younger and more progressive voters, but he has also alarmed more moderate Democrats who fear a shift too far to the left may backfire.

Republicans have attacked Mamdani's candidacy throughout the campaign, with Trump casting him as a communist.

"Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Trump said a vote for Sliwa would only help Mamdani.

"If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home," said Trump, a native New Yorker.

The US federal government is providing US$7.4 billion to New York City in fiscal year 2026, or about 6.4% of the city's total spending, according to a report from the New York State Comptroller.

 

World Has Become Partner in Killing of Gazans

This writeup examines how global inaction, diplomatic protection, and delayed humanitarian mechanisms have contributed to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. It questions whether the world, intentionally or by default, has become a passive partner in the tragedy.

The war in Gaza is not unfolding in isolation. It is taking place within a global system where major powers supply weapons, veto ceasefire resolutions, and delay the creation of any independent administrative or security mechanism for Gaza.

This does not mean every nation is actively supporting the killings, but the combination of strategic silence, diplomatic protection, and ineffective humanitarian enforcement creates the impression that the world, by action or inaction, has become a partner in allowing the destruction to continue.

The United States and several European governments remain Israel’s principal military and diplomatic supporters. Arms transfers, intelligence sharing, and repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council have blocked ceasefire initiatives or international investigations.

Although discussions were held about a transitional authority or peacekeeping force for post-conflict Gaza, no structure has been implemented. As a result, Israel continues to control borders, airspace, and aid oversight.

Humanitarian aid pledges from international donors rarely translate into consistent delivery. Bureaucratic inspections, restricted crossings, and lack of secure corridors delay supplies.

Arab and Muslim governments issue statements but refrain from economic sanctions, diplomatic withdrawal, or coordinated action through the OIC or Arab League. Their responses remain political, not operational.

However, describing the entire world as a partner overlooks visible resistance. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, Spain, and Norway have openly condemned Israeli actions. South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice on genocide charges. Humanitarian agencies — UNRWA, WHO, Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières — continue to work despite operational hazards and loss of staff.

Public resistance is also significant, with widespread protests across Europe, the U.S., and Muslim-majority countries, including from Jewish and academic groups. Some regional states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan provide aid or mediate negotiations, although within limited parameters.

Therefore, global behavior reflects neither full complicity nor decisive opposition. It is a landscape of selective engagement, geopolitical caution, and lack of enforcement. The failure is not of words, but of action.

 

India and Pakistan: Identify Common Enemy

There is a harsh reality often ignored — the people of India and Pakistan have suffered more from poverty, disasters, and neglect rather than from each other’s armies. Yet hawks continue to see the other side of the border as the greatest threat. Generations have grown up believing that patriotism means suspicion, that strength lies in weapons, and that peace is weakness. But what if the real enemy has never worn a uniform or carried a flag?

Both nations spend billions of dollars on arms, missiles, and surveillance — while hospitals run short of beds and medicines, schools crumble, and farmers take their own lives under the weight of debt. A mother in Karachi and a mother in Kanpur worry about the same things: a child’s future, safe drinking water, a stable income, a life with dignity. Yet both are told that the biggest danger lies across the border, not within their own streets.

The real enemies are hunger, illiteracy, unemployment, floods, droughts, and corruption. These enemies do not need visas; they cross borders every day. Floodwaters destroy homes in Sindh and Assam alike. Farmers in Punjab — on both sides — pray for rains and fair prices. Youth in Lahore and Lucknow struggle to find jobs despite degrees. These shared pains are louder than the slogans of hate, if only we choose to listen.

Yes, history has been bitter. Wars have been fought, lives have been lost, and wounds run deep. But must our children inherit this hostility as their only legacy? Are we destined to repeat the same mistakes simply because we are too proud to change?

Imagine a different rivalry — not of tanks and missiles, but of innovation, literacy rates, clean energy, technology, and exports. Imagine India and Pakistan competing to eliminate poverty faster, to educate every child, to heal the sick, to build green economies, to lead the world in science and discovery. That is a kind of competition the world would welcome — and our people desperately need.

True strength is not measured by how many enemies we can defeat, but by how many lives we can uplift. A strong nation is not one that frightens others, but one that gives its citizens hope.

India and Pakistan do not need to become military superpowers. They have the potential to become economic and human development giants — if only they identify their real enemy.

 

Trump’s Belligerence Toward Venezuela

US Representative Ro Khanna has called for urgent congressional action to prevent “another endless, regime-change war,” following reports that President Donald Trump is considering military strikes against Venezuela. Khanna warned such actions would be “blatantly unconstitutional,” emphasizing that no president has the authority to launch attacks without Congress’ approval.

Reports from the Miami Herald claimed the Trump administration has decided to strike Venezuelan military installations, while the Wall Street Journal reported that potential targets—mainly military facilities allegedly used for drug smuggling—have been identified, though Trump has not made a final decision. According to unnamed officials, the goal of these strikes would be to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

While the White House denies any finalized plans, Trump said aboard Air Force One that he believes he has the authority to act without congressional approval. Last week, he suggested land strikes could follow recent unauthorized and deadly attacks on boats in waters near Central and South America.

Despite growing concerns about a possible unauthorized military escalation, only a handful of lawmakers have voiced strong opposition. Senators Tim Kaine, Rand Paul, and Adam Schiff have backed a resolution to block Trump from launching strikes without congressional authorization. Other lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders and Ruben Gallego, have condemned Trump’s aggressive posture.

Sanders argued Trump is “illegally threatening war with Venezuela,” stressing that only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war. Public opposition is also evident; Dylan Williams from the Center for International Policy noted that most Americans oppose forcibly overthrowing Venezuela’s government.

Williams urged citizens to contact their senators and support S.J.Res.90, a resolution to block unauthorized military action. In the House, a similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow has gained over 30 cosponsors. Representative Joe Neguse, who supports the measure, said Trump “does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without specific authorization by Congress,” calling any unilateral action reckless and unconstitutional.

Neguse added that the American public does not want another endless war and that constitutional norms require congressional deliberation—period.

PSX benchmark index closes almost flat despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) experienced volatility throughout the week amid border tensions with Afghanistan, declining initially before rebounding sharply by 4,900 points in the final session following positive news of a potential ceasefire. It ultimately closed at 161,632 points, down 1% during the week.

Average daily traded volumes contracted by 14.7%WoW to 1,564 million shares despite roll over week as investors remained cautious.

The key highlight was the decision by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to maintain the policy rate at 11%, broadly in line with expectations.

Pakistan-Afghanistan negotiations in Istanbul concluded with a truce under certain conditions, easing geopolitical tensions.

Meanwhile, authorities assured the IMF of additional PKR200 billion in revenue measures if 1HFY26 tax targets fall short.

In the T-Bill auction, the SBP raised PPR1.0 trillion, with yields falling 11bps on 1-month paper but rising 10bps on 12-month tenor.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP declined by US$16 million to US$14.5 billion as of October 24, 2025.

AKD Securities foresees the momentum in the benchmark index to continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities.

Top picks of AKD Securities include MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, SYS and INDU.

 

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.