Will India Make Any Attempt to Save Hasina?

The situation surrounding Sheikh Hasina has entered a critical phase as a Dhaka court prepares to announce a televised verdict expected to convict the former prime minister on charges of crimes against humanity linked to last year’s student-led protests. Her son, Sajeeb Wazed, has stated that the outcome is predetermined, a death sentence is likely, but Hasina is secure in India under full protection.

The core question is whether India will intervene in any form. Hasina has lived in exile in New Delhi since August 2024, and according to her son, she is being treated “like a head of state.” This indicates that India has already taken a clear position: providing her sanctuary. Whether that extends to diplomatic or political intervention is less certain.

India’s relationship with Hasina has been long and strategic. Her 15 years in power offered New Delhi stability across a sensitive border and alignment on security issues. Losing that political stability in Bangladesh carries regional implications, especially given the scale of unrest reported by the United Nations: up to 1,400 deaths and thousands injured during the July–August 2024 protests.

The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, rejects claims of political motivation, stressing the transparency of the tribunal. However, the broader context includes the suspension of the Awami League’s registration, bans on its political activity, and ongoing detentions of its activists.

Wazed has warned that elections without the Awami League will not be allowed to proceed and that protests will escalate, potentially leading to violence. Recent crude bombings and arson in Dhaka indicate that tensions are already rising.

For India, intervening directly risks worsening anti-India sentiment within Bangladesh. Remaining passive, however, could result in Hasina facing severe judicial consequences and her supporters confronting a political dead-end.

India is likely to maintain a protective stance over Hasina’s physical safety while avoiding overt involvement in Bangladesh’s judicial or electoral process. Whether this limited approach will be enough as the situation deteriorates remains uncertain.

No Force Should Replace Gaza’s Right to Self-Rule

The United Nations is set to consider a resolution authorizing an International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, a move that reflects widespread concern over renewed violence. Senior diplomats suggest China and Russia may abstain rather than veto the US-backed draft, which proposes a transitional Board of Peace and a 20,000 strong ISF to support security, humanitarian access, and governance.

While international support can help create a stable environment, the ultimate decision on Gaza’s political future must rest with its people. Any transitional arrangement should pave the way for free and fair elections within 90 days, giving Gazans the authority to choose their own leaders.

The US draft emphasizes a pathway to Palestinian self-determination, tied to reforms and reconstruction efforts. This approach highlights the importance of structured governance and long-term development. Equally, those responsible for the destruction must contribute to rebuilding Gaza, ensuring homes, schools, and hospitals are restored quickly.

Regional and international support remains crucial. Arab and Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, have endorsed the initiative, reflecting broad concern for the humanitarian situation. At the same time, suggestions for clearer UN oversight, such as Russia’s alternative draft, underline the need for transparency and coordination.

The path forward is straightforward - stability, reconstruction, and self-rule must go hand in hand. International support can assist, but Gazans themselves must lead the process. With swift elections, accountable governance, and targeted rebuilding, Gaza can chart a path toward lasting peace and recovery.

A Careful Moment for US–Saudi Diplomacy

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s upcoming visit to Washington promises to be one of the most closely watched diplomatic engagements of the year. President Donald Trump has already framed the event as an occasion to “honor Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince,” signalling both warmth and strategic intent. The White House is preparing pageantry normally reserved for a full state visit—an unmistakable sign of the value Washington places on Riyadh. Yet amid the ceremony and high-level meetings, a measure of prudence will serve both sides well.

The Crown Prince’s itinerary reflects the depth of the US–Saudi partnership. Tuesday begins with a formal welcome on the South Lawn, followed by an Oval Office meeting and the signing of important economic and defense agreements. A high-profile dinner in the East Room and a major US-Saudi Business Council gathering the following day underscore the widening scope of cooperation. President Trump has repeatedly spoken of his “very special relationship” with Prince Mohammed, calling him an “incredible man” and even a friend. That message alone sets a favourable tone for the visit.

However, American political culture is uniquely sensitive to past controversies—particularly those amplified by the media. The tragic killing of a Saudi journalist several years ago generated intense debate in Washington, some of which still lingers in parts of the political class. Although the matter has long been addressed at the state level, it has not entirely faded from public memory. In such an environment, even the most ceremonial visits can attract renewed scrutiny.

It is in this context that a gentle reminder becomes relevant - diplomatic engagements at this level benefit immensely from careful messaging, coordinated outreach, and an awareness of how quickly narratives can be revived. Such caution is not a criticism of either leader; rather, it is a recognition of the complexities of contemporary geopolitics.

Ultimately, the Crown Prince’s visit offers a valuable opportunity to reaffirm a partnership that remains central to Gulf stability and global economic cooperation. By keeping the focus on shared goals and forward-looking dialogue, both Riyadh and Washington can ensure that the visit strengthens ties, reinforces mutual respect, and avoids distractions that serve neither side.

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.

Trump’s Admission Strengthens Iranian Case Against US

Donald Trump’s casual admission that he personally oversaw Israel’s strikes on Iran has reopened a legal and diplomatic front Washington had been trying hard to keep shut. What the administration denied in real time, Trump confirmed with ease — turning a boastful remark into potential evidence. In a region where narratives matter and legal battles increasingly shape geopolitical outcomes, Trump’s words have handed Tehran an unexpected opening.

Trump’s claim that he was “very much in charge” of the Israeli attacks carries serious implications. In the US, suspects are routinely warned that anything they say can be used against them. Yet some assume this principle does not apply to those in power. There was a reason the administration initially distanced itself from the June 13 strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted Israel had acted “unilaterally” and that the US was not involved. But Trump, seeking to inflate his own role, publicly claimed responsibility in early November, ignoring the consequences.

Tehran reacted immediately. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said it had always been clear the US participated in what Iran called Israel’s “crime of aggression.” The 12-day campaign ended on June 24, leaving more than 1,100 Iranians dead, including military commanders, scientists and civilians. Key nuclear, military and civilian sites were hit.

Analysts believe the offensive stopped only after Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes caused significant damage in Israel and hit a US airbase in Qatar. Without that response, they argue the strikes could have continued until Iran was destabilized.

Iran quickly escalated the matter to the United Nations. Its ambassador urged the Security Council to hold Washington accountable. Days later, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, calling the strikes violations of the UN Charter, IAEA resolutions and Security Council Resolution 487.

He said responsibility rests with Israel and the US, “which – in line with Trump’s admission – directed and controlled the aggression.” Iran formally demanded full reparation for material and moral damages.

International law expert Dr. Hesamuddin Boroumand said Trump’s admission amounts to acknowledgment, giving Iran grounds to pursue compensation through UN mechanisms. He added that Iran could also approach the UN Human Rights Council, as attacks on civilian sites violated the Geneva Conventions and the fundamental right to life, creating criminal responsibility for US officials involved.

A recent precedent exists: in South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ, statements by Israeli officials were used as evidence. The ICC later cited some of those remarks when issuing arrest warrants, including for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Trump’s words, offered casually, may now carry weight far beyond domestic politics — potentially reviving Iran’s case against the United States on the global stage.

PSX benchmark index up 1.5%WoW despite volatility

The successful approval of 27th Amendment by majority in both lower and upper houses settled political uncertainty, driving the index up by 3,751 points in last two trading sessions. Consequently, benchmark index closed at 161,935 points on Friday, up 1.5%WoW. The said positive outweighed the early-week bearish sentiment stemming from continued tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, as peace talks concluded without a resolution and Afghanistan announced a suspension of trade with and through Pakistan.

Meanwhile, market participation weakened by 13.6%WoW with avg daily traded volume down to 944 million shares, as against 1.1 billion shares a week ago.

On the macroeconomic front, workers remittance during the month of October 2025 was recorded at US$3.4 billion, up 12%YoY. Alongside, inflows under the Roshan Digital Accounts were reported at US$250 million during October 2025, up 4.6%MoM.

Auto sector sales rose to 20,985 units, up 38%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$22 million to US$14.5 billion as of November 07, 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 the brokerage include: MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, and INDU.