Connect with us

Featured

Pakistan Establishment’s Move Against Imran Khan and PTI

Published

on

Pakistan Establishment Moves Against Imran Khan

The recent political developments in Pakistan, involving the Establishment’s crackdown on Imran Khan’s political party Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaf (PTI) have marked another watershed moment in the chequered political history of Pakistan. The Establishment in Pakistan is once again involved in breaking and making political parties. The developments are not unprecedented and follow a model. A charismatic political leader who commands legitimacy among the masses rises. The army or the Establishment becomes wary of the leader’s power. In order to protect their political power, they go after the leader, by breaking their political party and killing them.

Imran Khan’s Threat to the Establishment

Imran Khan and his party PTI pose a grave danger to the power of the Establishment. His supporters mostly come from the urban middle classes. This specific class has been historically a supporter of the Establishment. Khan thus ate into the support of the Pakistani army. The army views it as a zero-sum game— Khan’s increasing support is their loss.

Even though it was initially alleged that Khan came to power in 2018 because of the backing of the Establishment, he turned out to be dangerous for the Establishment. The differences came to the fore after the fall of Kabul. Khan refused the CIA’s requests to establish its bases in Pakistan for future operations in Afghanistan.

Pakistani Army has historically leaned towards the US. Immediately after independence, the Pakistani Army became a part of various defence and security treaties with the US. Further, the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan also brought the Pakistani Army closer to the US. Similarly, post-2001 when the US launched its operations in Afghanistan, Pakistani Army’s support was crucial to the US.

However, during the recent withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, the Pakistani Army was sidelined. Prime Minister Imran Khan took all the important decisions. The Pakistani Army felt threatened. After a few months, the opposition ousted Imran Khan from office through a no-confidence motion in April 2022. There were various accusations of US involvement in Khan’s ouster because the US had at various times publicly expressed its displeasure of Khan’s policies. However, these accusations have not been proven.

Also Read: Pakistan’s March towards Democratic Reform

Politically Motivated Corruption Charges Against Khan

After his ouster, the ruling government charged Khan and his family with various corruption cases. The government recently arrested him in these cases. His supporters took to the streets to protest the arrest. Later, Supreme Court of Pakistan had to intervene in the matter and the court released Khan on bail. However, during the protests, there were widespread incidences of violence in which several key army installations were damaged by the protesters.

The government alleges that Khan and his political party instigated their supporters to carry out violence. Khan and his party have denied the charges. However, the government arrested several key PTI leaders for instigating the violence. The courts released some of these leaders later but they have now either abandoned PTI or quit politics altogether. The army seems to have pressured these leaders to give up politics or face the consequences.  Further, it is also a tactic to isolate Imran Khan and criminalize any kind of association with him.

The Establishment is trying people associated with the recent violence under army law. The government is also publicly talking about banning PTI. Several international human rights organizations have called upon the Pakistani government to try these people under civil law.

Also Read: Pakistan Crisis Explained – Looming Threat of a Military Coup

Establishment’s Move Against Khan Not Unprecedented

The Establishment’s attempt to break PTI and obliterate Imran Khan by accusing him of terror and corruption is not unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. There were at least two cases where a popular political leader rose and the Pakistani Army felt threatened. They either killed them or tried to obliterate their political parties. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested and his party banned while Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was killed.

Sheikh Mujibur Rehman

When Sheikh Mujibur Rahman emerged as a mass leader in the erstwhile East Pakistan, his party won a majority of the seats in the 1970 elections. He was about to take the charge of Prime Minister of Pakistan, but the Establishment was against him. The Establishment arrested him and banned his party and launched the infamous operation in East Pakistan that culminated in the liberation of East Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh in 1971.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

Similarly, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto emerged as a mass leader in Pakistan in the early 1970s, he threatened the Pakistani Army’s power.  Pakistan Army’s chief, General Zia-ul-Haq staged a coup and arrested Bhutto on the charges of murder. After a lot of controversy, the court found Bhutto guilty in the case and subsequently sentenced him to death. They finally executed him in April 1979.

There is a standard model that the Establishment in Pakistan follows when it comes to the rise of popular political leaders. The Establishment either kills or politically obliterates any leader who threatens its power. It is still in the initial days of the process to make Imran Khan politically irrelevant in Pakistan, and it remains to be seen how the Establishment will deal with Khan.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Deportation

Deportation as a Weapon: New Frontline of Palestinian Rights in the US

Published

on

Deportation-as-a-Weapon

The first time Mahmoud Khalil’s name began circulating beyond activist circles, it was not because of a speech or a protest, but due to a legal notice – a deportation order.

In the 21st century, it is appalling to see people’s right to life and other basic human rights being ridiculed. In the larger picture, the deportation drive is a hidden assault on whoever talks about the rights of the Palestinians in the United States.

A Case That Refused to Stay Quiet

Mahmoud Khalil is a Palestinian activist based in the United States. His work has focused on raising awareness about Gaza and advocating for Palestinian rights through public events and campus-linked activism.

Since Israel is being largely supported in the West, anyone who talks about the fundamental rights of the people of Gaza is dealt with extreme brutality. In this context, the Federal agencies of the United States moved forward with his deportation proceedings even though he is a permanent American citizen and married to a US citizen too.

It is not about Mahmoud Khalil or any individual but about a greater cause that is to allow the freedom of speech, expression, and association.

Palestinian Rights and the Mayor of New York

Zohran Mamdani, a prominent elected official, publicly defended Khalil, arguing that deportation should not be used as a tool against political expression. In doing so, Mamdani shifted the conversation from immigration procedure to constitutional principle.

His message remains clear: “advocacy for Palestinian rights is not a crime, and deportation should not become a backdoor method of punishing dissent.”

The response was swift, and the supporters praised the stance as a rare act of political courage. Critics accused Mamdani of shielding extremism. Media coverage intensified, and Khalil’s case became symbolic.

People are dying in Gaza due to bombings, famine, poor health, and absolutely no sense of security. In this environment, instead of allowing the people of Gaza to breathe, it is inhumane that their voices are being silenced.

Deportation and the Chilling Effect

Immigration law experts note that deportation proceedings are uniquely powerful. Unlike criminal trials, they operate in a separate legal universe—one with fewer protections, lower evidentiary thresholds, and limited public scrutiny.

For activists who are students, workers, or asylum-seekers, this vulnerability is well understood.

Civil rights groups have documented a growing sense of fear among foreign-born activists involved in Palestine-related advocacy. Some report withdrawing from public organizing, while others avoid protests altogether, worried that visibility could trigger legal consequences unrelated to their conduct.

Since the escalation of the Gaza war, US campuses have seen a surge in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. These demonstrations came alongside suspensions, surveillance concerns, and disciplinary actions. Khalil’s case sits squarely within this context.

A Broader Pattern Takes Shape

Across the US, Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists, especially those without citizenship, describe increased scrutiny. Immigration status has become a pressure point, a way to narrow the space for political engagement without directly confronting free speech protections.

Moreover, some legal scholars point out that while citizens may face arrest or prosecution for protest-related activity, non-citizens face an additional, existential risk: expulsion.

This asymmetry reshapes activism. Ultimately, it creates two classes of dissent—those who can speak and those who must calculate the cost of every word.

Where the World is Heading

The world conscience would definitely be questioned in the annals of history when the chapter of Palestine comes. The world is getting divided among the nations that support the Palestinian right to existence and the other ones that do not support this very basic human right.

In his book, “On Palestine”, Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky clearly described the atrocities by Israel and the ground-breaking support it gets from the West. Peppe even claimed that there is ethnic cleansing being done in Palestine by Israel.

In fact, the current deportation trends are about the advocacy tied to Palestine. The question is how a responsible democracy responds when uncomfortable voices refuse to appear.

As one civil liberties advocate put it: “You don’t have to win every case to change the climate. You just have to make people afraid.”

Ultimately, this is about changing the political climate and making people afraid of speaking against Israel or in favor of Palestine. The outcome of Khalil’s case remains uncertain. However, the signals it sends to activists, institutions, and the state are already unmistakable.

In today’s world, speaking about Gaza can follow you far beyond the protest!

Continue Reading

Featured

Life Inside Gaza’s Tents: Cold Nights, Illness, and Endless Waiting

Published

on

Life-Inside-Gazas-Tents

Before sunrise, the camp is already awake. A woman steps carefully between puddles that did not exist the night before. To add more to the inhumane conditions, rainwater has mixed with waste and ash, turning the ground into a thin, foul-smelling slurry. She is carrying two empty containers, hoping the water point has not run dry again today.

Nearby, a child coughs, a persistent dry cough that has become common in the tents since winter set in. This is just a glimpse of life now for hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza. This is not a story of a temporary stop, nor of an emergency night or two, but of a prolonged existence inside fabric shelters that were never meant to last months.

According to the United Nations, around 1.7 million people remain displaced across Gaza. Not only that, a large share of them is living in tents, plastic shelters, or overcrowded informal sites. These sites are often pitched on rubble, farmland, or roadsides. The ceasefire might have changed the tempo of the war but for those in the camps, it did not restore normal life at all.

From Homes to Tents

Entire neighborhoods across Gaza have been flattened or rendered uninhabitable. As per the UN satellite assessments, well over half of Gaza’s housing stock has been damaged or completely destroyed, leaving families with no realistic option to return.

Tents were supposed to be temporary, but as the atrocities continue to inflict the people of Gaza, now these are standing for months.

Moreover, most of those tents offer no insulation. At night, cold air moves freely through torn seams. During rain, water pools inside, soaking thin mattresses and blankets. When storms hit, some tents collapse entirely, forcing families to crowd into neighboring shelters or even sleep outdoors until replacements arrive — if they arrive at all.

These are not the conditions for life to even exist. Aid agencies describe these sites less as camps and more as open-air holding zones, where survival depends on irregular deliveries of water, food, and fuel.

Smoke, Plastic, and the Air People Breathe

With fuel scarce and electricity almost nonexistent, many families burn whatever they can find to keep warm or cook food. Plastic packaging, scraps of rubber, and mixed waste are common substitutes.

The smoke hangs low in the evenings. Burning plastic releases toxic fumes that aggravate respiratory problems, especially among children and older people. A few clinics, which are fortunately left, operating inside or near displacement sites report rising cases of persistent coughs, chest infections, and eye irritation, conditions that are difficult to treat in overcrowded settings with limited medicine.

For many families, the choice is brutal. Either to breathe toxic smoke or to endure freezing nights. This is like a Hobson’s choice for them to live in these conditions.

Childhood on Hold

Children make up nearly half of Gaza’s population, and many are growing up almost entirely inside tents.

There is no school routine, no playground, and no sense of safety after dark. Parents describe children waking at night from cold, fear, or hunger. It is not surprising that the aid workers are noting signs of trauma, including withdrawal, bed-wetting, sudden aggression, and silence.

Mental health professionals working with humanitarian teams have warned that prolonged displacement, especially under such harsh conditions, can leave long-term psychological scars. On the other hand, counselling services are scarce, and survival needs usually come first.

For many children, days pass without structure. Time is measured not by lessons or play, but by queues for water, food distributions, and the arrival, or absence, of aid trucks.

Rain, Sewage, and the Winter Toll

The appalling living conditions were already very severe, but in the winter, it makes them tenfold, turning shelters into hazards.

Heavy rainfall has flooded multiple displacement sites, washing sewage into living areas and soaking tents beyond repair. In some camps, families have raised bedding on bricks or broken furniture in an attempt to stay dry.

Humanitarian reports, including those from Transparency International, document tents collapsing under wind and rain, forcing repeated displacement even within camps. Each move strips families of what little stability they have managed to create.

Cold weather has compounded illness. Without proper clothing, heating, or medical care, respiratory infections have become harder to manage. Clinics, already overstretched, struggle to cope with demand.

A Ceasefire Without a Way Home

For people living in tents, the ceasefire did not bring clarity. Some families hoped it would mean a return home. Instead, many areas remain inaccessible, unsafe, or destroyed. In some cases, new evacuation orders have continued, forcing further movement even after the fighting slowed.

Aid workers say uncertainty is one of the heaviest burdens. Families do not know whether to rebuild makeshift shelters, prepare to move again, or wait for instructions that may never come.

“We Are Still Here”

In the camps, people talk less about politics and more about endurance and survival.

They talk about missing ordinary things, like doors that lock, floors that are dry, and nights without smoke. They talk about children growing up too fast, about illness that lingers, about days that blend into each other.

One displaced man summed it up simply: “We are alive, but this is not living.”

In a nutshell, survival continues, measured in blankets, liters of water, and the hope that tomorrow will bring something other than uncertainty to breathe.

Continue Reading

Featured

Board of Peace Explained: New Global Peace Architecture or Another Power Play?

Published

on

Board-of-Peace-Explained-New-Global-Peace-Architecture-or-Another-Power-Play

This is not just about a region in this world where human rights are not given, and people are being killed. It is about humanity, life, and the very foundations of values that humans are living with. When Gaza is discussed today, it is rarely in the language of rights. It is discussed as a problem to be solved, a territory to be stabilized, and a population to be administered.

The announcement of a new international “Board of Peace” fits neatly into this pattern. Presented as a bold initiative to guide Gaza out of conflict and into reconstruction, the Board of Peace has been framed by its sponsors as innovative, inclusive, and forward-looking. Yet for Palestinians, the announcement raises an older, still unresolved question: Who decides Gaza’s future, and on what authority?

What Is the Board of Peace?

The Board of Peace was announced by US President Donald Trump as part of a broader Phase Two Gaza plan, marking a shift from ceasefire management to post-genocide governance and reconstruction.

According to official descriptions, the board is meant to:

  • Oversee Gaza’s political transition
  • Coordinate reconstruction funding and investment
  • Provide international supervision during a “transitional” period

Trump declared himself chair of the board and described it as a high-level body composed of political leaders, financial figures, and diplomatic actors. Unlike the United Nations, the board has no clear treaty basis, no General Assembly mandate, and no defined accountability mechanism.

It is powerful not because it is formal, but because it is backed by money, political leverage, and security control.

Who is on the Board?

The individuals named or referenced in connection with the Board of Peace are not neutral facilitators.

The board’s executive circle includes:

  • Marco Rubio, US Senator and the Secretary of State
  • Tony Blair, former UK prime minister
  • Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former Middle East envoy
  • Steve Witkoff, US real estate magnate and political donor
  • Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank

These are figures associated with Western political power, financial institutions, and security-centric diplomacy. None are elected Palestinian representatives. None comes from Gaza. The imbalance is structural, not incidental.

Which Countries Were Invited?

One of the board’s defining features is its attempt to project global legitimacy through invited state participation.

According to credible sources, Trump sent invitations to around 60 world leaders. Those explicitly named in reporting include:

  • Turkey (President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan)
  • Egypt (President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi)
  • Canada (Prime Minister Mark Carney)
  • Argentina (President Javier Milei)

Moreover, some diplomatic sources also indicate the list includes:

  • Britain
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Morocco
  • Indonesia
  • Australia

The Palestinian Face of the Plan: Who Is Ali Shaath?

To provide the plan with Palestinian leadership, the US has backed Ali Shaath as head of the transitional Palestinian committee that will administer Gaza’s civil affairs under the Board of Peace.

Shaath’s profile is central to understanding how this governance model is being sold.

Here is a quick overview of Ali Shaath:

  • He was born in 1958 in Khan Younis
  • He is a civil engineer with a PhD from Queen’s University Belfast
  • He previously served as deputy minister of planning in the Palestinian Authority
  • He has worked on industrial zone projects in both Gaza and the West Bank

Shaath has spoken publicly about the scale of Gaza’s destruction, estimating around 68 million tons of rubble, much of it contaminated with unexploded ordnance. He has suggested that clearing debris could take three years, with full recovery achievable in seven years. It seems to be a far more optimistic timeline than UN estimates, which warn that rebuilding could extend beyond 2040.

Politically, Shaath has been described as acceptable to both Hamas and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, precisely because he is positioned as a technocrat rather than a political leader. However, it is yet to be observed how he would work with the other members.

Governance Without Sovereignty

The Palestinian committee, chaired by Shaath, has issued a mission statement pledging to restore services, rebuild infrastructure, and stabilize daily life in Gaza.

The committee describes its work as “rooted in peace” and focused on technocratic administration rather than politics.

Yet the committee:

  • Controls no borders
  • Commands no security forces
  • Regulates no airspace or coastline
  • Has no electoral mandate

It governs without power, while power remains in external hands.

When it comes to the reaction of the people of Gaza, they showed mixed feelings of skepticism over hope. Some Palestinians express cautious hope that any plan might bring electricity, water, and an end to constant displacement. Others see the Board of Peace as another externally designed structure that manages Gaza without addressing the occupation.

Peace Architecture or Power Management?

The Board of Peace is being presented as an innovation. However, history offers a cautionary lens.

Temporary governance structures in occupied or post-conflict territories have a habit of becoming permanent. Reconstruction becomes conditional. Aid becomes leverage. Administration replaces self-determination.

In a nutshell, the Board of Peace asks the world to believe that stability can precede justice, and that governance can substitute for freedom.

For Palestinians, the unanswered question is simpler and older:

If Gaza’s future is designed in Washington, financed in global capitals, and overseen by external boards—where does Palestinian self-determination actually begin?

Until that question is addressed, the Board of Peace risks becoming not a new architecture for peace, but another structure built on the same imbalance that has kept Gaza unfree for decades.

Peace cannot be outsourced, and a people cannot be rebuilt while being brutally ruled.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending