Pakistan Press on: Indus Waters Treaty, Pope, Peace, Weaponised, Legal: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
25 April 2025
A New Era Is Beginning
India Can’t Stop Pakistan’s Water
Pope For Peace
Weaponized Narratives
Delusion Next Door
Undergraduate Focus
Legal Aspect Of Indus Waters Treaty Suspension
-------
A New Era Is Beginning
By Javid Husain
April 25, 2025
The global strategic environment has been radically transformed over the past quarter of a century with increasing signs of the end of the US-dominated unipolar moment and the emergence of a multipolar world characterised by the primacy of power politics over international law leading to growing disorder and diminished authority of the UN in strategic issues of war and peace.
US President Trump’s disregard of recognised norms of inter-state conduct and reliance instead on unilateralism and brute use of national power has driven the last nail in the coffin of the so-called rules-based world order that had been established by the US-led West in the aftermath of World War II. This order was ostensibly for the preservation of international peace and security, promotion of economic progress through market mechanisms and free trade, and protection of human rights, but its structure and rules were primarily meant to promote the security, economic and cultural interests of the US-led West and maintain its global domination.
China’s dramatic rise over the past four decades has posed a serious challenge to the US global hegemony. China’s rapidly growing economic and military power and its outreach to the Global South through such initiatives as BRI have curtailed the US's ability to influence or determine the course of events in different regions of the world. The US has responded to China’s challenge through its policy of containment of China by strengthening its alliances with Japan, South Korea and Australia, building up its strategic partnership with India, and by establishing such forums as the Quad and AUKUS. It has also launched a worldwide campaign to vilify China’s economic outreach to the Global South. America’s criticism of BRI and CPEC needs to be seen against this background.
Unfortunately for the US and its Western allies, their attempts have failed to check China’s rise, the expansion of its influence in the Global South, and its penetration of the Western markets through a flood of manufactured goods with negative consequences for their industries and the availability of jobs domestically giving rise to domestic discontent and ultra-nationalist political pressure groups in US and Europe.
The supporters of these tendencies see globalisation and the resultant outflow of investments by MNCs to China and the Global South, and the massive inflow of cheap imports from them, as a threat to their jobs and economic prosperity. A powerful China, a re-assertive Russia and the rise of other powers have also limited the ability of the US-led West to have its way on political, security and economic issues in different regions of the world as witnessed by its inability to counter effectively Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Under President Trump’s leadership, many Republican policymakers in the US see strong hindrances to the maintenance of America’s global hegemony in the rules-based world order. They are, therefore, prepared to opt for unilateral measures in violation of recognised norms of inter-state conduct for the preservation and promotion of American security and economic interests.
The imposition of worldwide tariffs by President Trump, especially punitive tariffs on China, in a departure from the principles of free trade, America’s threats to Iran on its nuclear programme in violation of the principles of the UN Charter, America’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time under Trump, and the US disregard of UN resolutions for checking the ongoing genocide in the MidEast reflect the trend towards the triumph of unilateralism over multilateralism and the demise of the rules-based world order.
It is worthwhile to drive home the point that the emerging new era will be power-based and power-driven – decisions in it would be based increasingly on the balance of power to the neglect of considerations of international law and morality, and the quest for more and more power would be the driving force behind its decisions on major issues of peace and security. The second related point would be the diminished authority of the UN in decision-making on strategic issues of war and peace. Increasingly, decisions on such issues will be taken by powerful states elsewhere to be rubber-stamped later by the UN.
Third, the US policy of containment of China may lead to proxy wars and local conflicts in different regions of the world, especially in the Far East. Fourth, globalisation may give way to economic fragmentation with negative consequences for global economic prosperity.
Transactionalism rather than idealism, shifting alliances reflecting the fast changes in global and regional power balances, the emergence of new power centres in different regions reflecting the dispersal of power, and the growing importance of science and technology will be the hallmark of the new global era. Given the presence of several economic power centres like China, India, Japan, Indonesia and South Korea, Asia will assume the dominant role globally in economic terms that it enjoyed in the pre-industrial revolution era.
Other salient features of the emerging new era would include preoccupation with such issues as climate change, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction especially nuclear proliferation, exploration of outer space, development of new technologies such as quantum computing and biotechnology, and the growing role of cyberspace and AI in national and international affairs. The possibility that civilisational differences may play an increasingly important role in international affairs in the decades to come, as predicted by Samuel Huntington, cannot be totally ruled out.
In the calculation of national power in the new era, the most important element would be the economic and technological strength of a country and its scientific advancement in any long-term contest between nations. Nations which de-emphasise the quest for knowledge and assign low priority to economic growth and technological development will turn out to be losers in the long run. As the disintegration of the Soviet Union showed, it is dangerous to build a heavy military superstructure on weak economic and technological foundations.
Pakistan must prepare itself to face successfully the political, security, economic, technological, and cultural challenges of the emerging new era. To start with, it will have to place main reliance on building up its national power, especially its economic and technological strength and scientific advancement, for its survival and prosperity in the increasingly anarchic world that it would face in the coming decades of the 21st century. It must, therefore, assign the top priority to the goal of rapid economic and technological development.
The goal of rapid economic growth would require the allocation of maximum possible resources to economic development, combined with the policy of promoting peace in our neighbourhood to minimise the risk of war and to promote good neighbourly relations with our neighbours.
Pakistan must also continue to strengthen its cooperation with China in strategic, economic and technical fields while maintaining friendly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation with US, EU and the Muslim world. In view of the growing importance of Asia economically and strategically in the years to come, Pakistan must focus its attention on and allocate adequate resources to the development of its relations with countries in East Asia.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1304811-a-new-era-is-beginning
-----
India Can’t Stop Pakistan’s Water
By Ali Tahir
April 25, 2025
There's been a controversy going on in Pakistan for several weeks now. The core issue is that in Punjab, under the control of the SIFC and their vision, the Green Pakistan Initiative, a canal irrigation system is being built on the Sindh River, to irrigate the lands in the Cholistan area.
This has caused a major backlash in Sindh. A large cross-section of Sindh’s society – including businessmen, intellectuals, civil society members, writers, and lawyers – is strongly opposing it. The Sindh-Punjab border has been shut down for days, and protesters are staging sit-ins, demanding that the government withdraw the canal construction project.
While these water tensions are rising in Pakistan, there's news that India has taken a harsh step by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, which India is blaming on Pakistan. However, I believe India still can’t stop Pakistan’s share of water from the Indus Waters Treaty, which was signed in 1960, for reasons of both international law and realpolitik.
The treaty has survived previous wars in 1965, 1971, and 1999 – it was never suspended or terminated. The World Bank is the main broker and guarantor of the treaty. The move to suspend the treaty is more about political posturing to please India’s domestic audience. If India tries to block Pakistan’s water, it would seriously impact millions of people in Pakistan.
The Modi government had also in 2019 started threatening Pakistan, and just like last time, is now too simultaneously building up domestic political support by announcing that it will stop Pakistan’s water. This announcement is a facade. Under the Indus Waters Treaty, three rivers – Sutlej, Beas and Ravi – already belong to India and they can be used exclusively by India.
Now, since India can’t use its share, it flows over to Pakistan naturally, and there is not much India can do to even stop water from these three rivers, let alone the three rivers that are Pakistan’s exclusive share – the Indus (Sindh River), Chenab and Jhelum. In any event, it would take years for India to build projects to divert even the residual share of the water, let alone the water that is already Pakistan’s share. It cannot happen overnight.
Six rivers flow into Pakistan from India, and under the Indus Waters Treaty, three rivers have been assigned to each country for exclusive use. If India tries to stop water to Pakistan, it would not be the first time it would have violated the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty
In the 1990s, India constructed a hydroelectric plant in Doda district along the Chenab River. This river is one of the tributaries of the Indus River and was designated by the Indus Waters Treaty for use by Pakistan and has affected the mainly agrarian economy of Pakistan. Similarly, the Indian move to construct a hydroelectric plant along the Kishanganga River is a violation of international law, and specifically the Indus Waters Treaty.
International law provides a binding set of legal rights and obligations on both upper and lower riparian states in the context of water sharing. The position of customary international law for cross-border freshwater resources, such as rivers and lakes, directs towards equitable distribution and the codification of customary international law in the form of the Madrid Declaration of 1911. It clearly provides that one state cannot unilaterally alter fresh water resources to the detriment of another state where that fresh water resource may follow without its consent.
In the same vein, the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses reinforces the principle of international law that if a state shares an international watercourse with other states, it may only utilise it in a manner that is based on equitable and reasonable utilisation and participation.
Therefore, when international law is applied to the Indus River’s water, India is prohibited as an upper riparian state to stop in any way whatsoever, delay or divert waters of the rivers to the detriment of the state of Pakistan without its consent.
But international law has been violated by states before. The record of India, especially in relation to Pakistan, is one of an outlaw of international and bilateral agreements. So, can India block Pakistan’s water? Precedent suggests it can. However, would India block Pakistan’s water? It would not.
First, blocking Pakistan’s water would result in a blow to the image that India is trying to maintain as the saner state at the global level, one that has already been dented by the Kulbhushan Jadhav case and unfounded allegations on Pakistan post the Pulwama attack and now the Pahalgam attack without any evidence. In case India does block Pakistan’s water, it would only be to Pakistan’s benefit, where it would be seen as the more legitimate state suffering from the hands of a self-assumed regional hegemon. It would have diplomatic consequences, and with India continuing to try to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, asking for a permanent position at the UN Security Council and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India’s aim would be inordinately compromised.
Yet there’s more reason India would bleed itself should it decide to block Pakistan’s water. After the Uri attack in 2016, the Modi government threatened to scrap the Indus Waters Treaty and stop the flow of water to Pakistan. Amid these tensions between India and Pakistan, China blocked a tributary of the Brahmaputra River in Tibet, which resulted in severely impacting water flows in India. This was done as part of the construction of China’s most expensive hydro Lalho project. If India does in fact attempt to block Pakistan’s water, it would have no face to protest the violations of its water rights by China.
Pakistan and India are both mainly agrarian economies, and water disputes would hurt the economic development of both. India would never block Pakistan’s water – not only because it would be a violation of international law, but also because of diplomatic consequences. And it is time it realises why it is so important to act in accordance with the Indus Waters Treaty. It has no right to unilaterally suspend the treaty and run away from its obligations – nor does it have the necessary infrastructure to do so.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1304812-india-can-t-stop-pakistan-s-water
-----
Pope For Peace
By Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani
April 25, 2025
Last Sunday, I watched the special transmission of the Easter ceremony held in the Holy Vatican on the TV screen, where a huge crowd of people was eager to glimpse their spiritual leader, Pope Francis. I was thinking that the real ruler is the one who reigns in the hearts of the people, whose high personality and high character make people love him. However, no one knew that this Easter would prove to be the last Easter of the 88-year-old Pope Francis.
The 112th Pope of the Catholic Christian world, Francis, had the honour of being the first Latin American leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He believed in humility, modesty and a simple lifestyle. As soon as he assumed the holy position of the pope, he started focusing on the poor, the marginalised and the neglected. He made social justice a top priority of his papacy and considered it essential to discuss every issue that was related to the common good of humanity.
Pope Francis was strongly against oppression, aggression and brutality, which he also demonstrated in his recent Easter address. In his last address, he emphasised ending the ongoing atmosphere of war and hatred in the world, declaring that: "There can be no peace without freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and respect for the views of others."
The excellent way in which the Pope incorporated contemporary global issues, including climate change, into the teachings of the Church has never been seen before. According to him, it is the collective responsibility of people around the world to ensure the care and protection of their common habitat, the Earth. Pope Francis termed the Internet a gift from God in the digital age. According to him, “The digital world can be an environment rich in humanity; a network not of wires but of people.”
Pope Francis believed in forgiving others to achieve God's mercy. Declaring 2015-2016 the Holy Year of Mercy, he asked his followers to cultivate the qualities of forgiveness, compassion and understanding of each other's pain. Pope Francis was well aware of the bitter reality that, since ancient times, conflicts on religious grounds have been ongoing between different groups of people. Even today, mankind is facing serious threats from religious conflicts. This is why Pope Francis has always been at the forefront of promoting world peace and interfaith harmony.
During his tenure, Pope Francis stressed the need to ensure respect for every religion in his meetings with various leaders of Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and other faiths. Pope Francis won the hearts of peace-loving persons around the world by signing peace documents with several religious leaders. He took a historic step to bring the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church closer by issuing a joint declaration for the first time in the past thousand years. He also signed a Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, also known as the Abu Dhabi declaration, with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb.
Those who had the privilege of meeting Pope Francis said that he was not a traditional hard-liner religious figure, but used a great sense of humour during his conversations. Last year, he hosted more than a hundred prominent comedians from around the world at the holy site of the Vatican.
Pope Francis was also very concerned about the minorities living in Pakistan and India. Although he had hinted at visiting here many times, he never came in his lifetime.
In my opinion, Pope Francis was a legendary visionary leader who dedicated his entire life to peace. Today, Pakistanis are also mourning the demise of Pope Francis. Although he is not among us, he will always live in our hearts. Hopefully, the next pope will follow in his footsteps and make world peace and religious harmony top priority.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1304814-pope-for-peace
----
Weaponised Narratives
By Irfan Mustafa
April 25, 2025
As a loyal overseas Pakistani based in Dubai since 1997 who has stood shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan, I write this with clarity of purpose: to fully reject and categorically debunk a recent India Today article, titled 'Pakistan Army Chief’s Baloch Rhetoric Echoes Yahya Khan’s Bangladesh Playbook'.
Let me state at the outset that this article is beyond any journalistic ethics – it is narrative warfare. It attempts to draw dangerously false parallels between two entirely different historical contexts: East Pakistan in 1971 and Balochistan in 2025. And it does so with the strategic intention of sowing doubt, distorting perception and undermining the credibility of Pakistan’s military leadership.
The entire argument hinges on a contrived historical parallel that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Allow me to clearly spell out the critical differences: one, East Pakistan was separated by over 1,000 miles of hostile Indian territory, creating profound logistical and political isolation. Balochistan, by contrast, is fully integrated and contiguous with Pakistan and protected by a strong military infrastructure.
Two, East Pakistan constituted more than half of Pakistan’s total population and had democratically won the national political mandate in 1970, only to be denied it. Today, Balochistan represents 5–6 per cent of the national population, and is already represented at the centre, enjoying democratic participation within Pakistan’s federal structure.
Three, the resistance in East Pakistan was mass-based and politically mainstream. In contrast, Balochistan’s unrest stems from small, externally backed separatist factions, with no widespread public support. These groups do not represent the Baloch people, whose legitimate rights and development are actively being addressed by the state.
finally, the events of 1971 were marred by personal ambitions, fractured command, institutional disunity and political intrigues. Today’s military leadership is defined by unblemished character, professional excellence, and a singular, nationalistic agenda: to see Pakistan secure, united and economically sovereign.
One of the most striking aspects of the India Today article was its discomfort with COAS General Asim Munir's deliberate and thoughtful invocation of the Two-Nation Theory. In his powerful speech, he stated: “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different – that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations, we are not one nation.”
This is not a revisionist view. This is the historical truth behind Pakistan’s creation. The ideological clarity embedded in the Two-Nation Theory is the foundation of Pakistan’s identity, its sovereignty, and its right to exist as a homeland for Muslims in South Asia with dignity, honour and on our own terms to defend and promote Pakistan’s supreme national interest.
That India Today was provoked by this statement shows just how effective, timely and necessary it was. In fact, this ideological reassertion was a direct hit on India’s long-standing effort to dilute Pakistan’s national identity – which is why it drew immediate fire from their media.
COAS Gen Asim Munir’s strong message as “being purported with Machiavellian intent” was not a blanket statement on the province of Balochistan or its people. It was a targeted warning to externally-sponsored terrorist elements who have killed innocent Pakistanis, martyred our brave soldiers and attempted to destabilise the state.
His words were aimed precisely where they needed to be. His resolve – to “beat the hell out of these terrorists” – is national duty, and a clear articulation of Pakistan’s red line: no compromise on territorial integrity.
This is in stark contrast to 1971, when genuine political grievances were ignored. Today, Pakistan is actively engaging the Baloch people, investing in their development, and ensuring that they are not abandoned to the narratives of separatists.
Unlike the fragmented civil-military relations of the past, today’s Pakistan is blessed with a cohesive and disciplined military establishment; a leadership with no personal political ambitions; and unprecedented alignment with the civilian government at the national level under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
This unity is a historic asset. It enables clarity of purpose, strategic decisiveness and national confidence. The reasons for this propaganda campaign are obvious: CPEC has placed Balochistan at the crossroads of global commerce; China’s deepening investment in Gwadar threatens Western and Indian strategic interests; India continues to use media and proxies to fuel unrest and international scepticism; and the US pursues its own strategic objectives, securing maritime routes, safeguarding energy corridors, countering rival powers’ influence and maintaining a foothold in South Asia’s evolving power dynamics.
Whether in Pakistan or abroad, we must be vigilant and discerning. Do not fall for weaponised narratives. They are not neutral journalism but strategic interventions aimed at weakening our unity.
We must challenge false parallels, defend our truth, and support efforts that bring peace, rights and development to all corners of our nation – including Balochistan.
Let us not allow history to be misused, nor let our unity be shaken by distorted narratives. Balochistan is an inseparable part of Pakistan; its future lies not in division, but in dignity, development, and dialogue.
Together, we must protect the truth, preserve our national integrity, and move forward – united, resilient and proud.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1304815-weaponised-narratives
----
Delusion Next Door
By Nasim Zehra
April 25, 2025
The last 36 hours in Pakistan-India relations have reinforced patterns that have continued to dominate relations between these two nuclear armed neighbours who share multiple borders, centuries-old history, critical trade routes, rivers and waterways and no less potentially catastrophic climatic challenges in commonly shared climate zones.
Yet none of this prevents the two countries -- and their people -- from virtually living on the edge, constantly at risk of plunging into an unfathomable valley of death and destruction. Verbal clashes, acts of sabotage, subversive tactics, death squad patrols and skirmishes threaten to escalate into full-scale wars, whether limited or unlimited.
And the reason, once again, bears repeating: the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir issue. The international community, led by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 47 (1948), committed to holding a plebiscite to determine the region’s future. This commitment must finally be honoured, and the issue resolved.
The rough and ragged bilateral ties -- overshadowed by wars, near-wars and diplomatic standoffs -- not only create a context in which nearly 2.08 billion people, one-fourth of the global population, continue to live in poverty, chaos, hatred and underdevelopment, but also now raise the alarming prospect of nuclear-armed states inching toward Armageddon.
More than half a century later, plus one year, this also highlights and testifies to the centrality of resolving the Jammu and Kashmir issue as a necessary step towards lifting large swathes of South Asia out of subhuman conditions. Recognising this, the UN Security Council once again, in 1998, following the nuclearisation of both states, passed Resolution 1172, which specifically called for the resolution of the long-standing Jammu and Kashmir dispute.
Over the past 36 hours, beginning with the tragic terror attack that killed 27 innocent Indian citizens vacationing in the remote resort town of Pahalgam in Occupied Jammu & Kashmir, tensions have dramatically escalated. Pakistan was swiftly accused of supporting the group that claimed responsibility for the cold-blooded killings. In response, the Indian government, along with much of the Indian media, erupted in hysteria, calling for Pakistan to be “punished” and “taught a lesson". Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi cut short his state visit to Saudi Arabia, returning early to deal with the crisis.
On Indian television, retired General Bakshi appeared visibly distraught, calling for military action against Pakistan and warning that failure to do so would make India appear as a “nation of eunuchs”. He even went so far as to disparage Bangladesh, referring to it as a “two-anna nation".
By late night, India had announced its decision to withdraw from the Indus Waters Treaty (which was brokered by the World Bank), canceled its participation in Saarc, revoked all visas issued to Pakistani citizens, and reduced the staff of Pakistan’s High Commission. It declared to the international community that terrorism emanating from Pakistan must be stopped at all costs. Notably, the high-level security meeting convened in Delhi excluded the elected chief minister of Indian-occupied Kashmir, Omar Abdullah. India's decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance sets a dangerous precedent. It will also come to haunt India, which has water agreements with other countries.
Pakistan responded by urging the international guarantors of the Indus Waters Treaty to question and take appropriate action against India’s unilateral withdrawal from the agreement -- an act that is clearly illegal and requires immediate attention. In a near mirror response, Pakistan also called for the immediate departure of Indian High Commission staff in Islamabad, including defence attaches.
Now, let’s contextualise the attack and the responses. The killing of innocent civilians must be unequivocally condemned, and deepest condolences go to the families of the deceased. While an inquiry is essential, past experiences suggest that such investigations often amount to little. Some voices in Pakistan have labeled this a false-flag operation. I won’t make that claim myself, as I lack concrete evidence -- but I also can’t dismiss the possibility, especially considering the precedent of the Chattisinghpora Sikh killings in 2000. In that case, former US president Bill Clinton noted in a preface that Indian agencies were allegedly involved, and the narrative was later quietly withdrawn.
As for Pulwama -- remember what the governor of Jammu & Kashmir publicly said on multiple occasions? That it was orchestrated by the Indian government to score political points during an election season.
And there is the other dimension of the context that must be factored in. First, obviously that killing of innocent citizens has to be condemned and it can’t be justified under any circumstances just as the killing by Indian forces of innocent Kashmiris who are buried in those nameless graves in the large cemetery in the heart of Srinagar. Equally condemnable are the atrocities committed by the Indian state against imprisoned Kashmiri politician and nonviolent leader Yaseen Malik and no less against peace-loving humanist Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez -- both of whom the Indian state wants dead so as to silence the voice of Kashmiri freedom fighters. With the blood of iconic Kashmiris like Gilani and Burhanuddin Wani, indirectly or directly on the hands of the Indian state, it is the Indian state that must bear some responsibility for those who are killed in the crossfire of Indian-occupied Kashmir.
There is the palpable reality that India can hide but not erase. Kashmiris in large numbers are hugely resentful of the developments of August 2019. If India believes its illegal annexation is a done and dusted action, it is indulging in utterly misplaced optimism. These matters require dialogue and settlement. The policing of APHC leader Gilani Sahib’s grave, sending death squads to Pakistan over the last couple of years, the weaponisation of water -- these are all the ugly steps of an occupation state.
It is often said that India’s behaviour is to be taken as the inevitable behaviour of a major power and the diktat of realism instructs Pakistan to accept this behaviour. The fact is that Pakistan is a middle power, and with all its many internal contradictions and problems, it is fully equipped to push back Indian hegemony and state terrorism. It will not necessarily succeed within the immediate context. Neither will India be an unchallenged hegemon in our region of South Asia.
Delhi cannot buy peace in Indian-occupied Kashmir on the back of its violent and bloody policy of occupation and annexation nor can it unilaterally pull out without serious consequences from the Indus Waters Treaty. The world must comprehend the reality and the consequences of its policies towards India and Pakistan.
And while battles provide no answers, as Pakistan too has learnt the hard way in Kargil, if India is looking for one -- Pakistan is prepared to fight back.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1304813-delusion-next-door
-----
Undergraduate Focus
Faisal Bari
April 25, 2025
AN estimated 39 per cent of young people go to university in the US, 36pc in the UK, 27pc in India and about 8-9pc in Pakistan. This despite all the recent expansions in the university sector in the country.
Yes, youth unemployment amongst educated youth is high in the country. But that is a reflection of the current poor growth, poor quality of education at the college/ university level, skill mismatch and lack of entrepreneurial opportunities for young people. Other countries are giving many more youth university education; they are not having the same problems and, instead, are provided with interesting and rewarding career paths. It would be hard to imagine a flourishing economy, for a country of 250-million-plus people, where only 8-9pc of young people go to university.
But as a country, we have never really focused on undergraduate education in Pakistan. In the early 2000s, when we had a lot more fiscal space and there was a push to expand higher education under the regulatory eye of the HEC, the high and mighty decided to focus on opening graduate and doctoral programmes and making a big push for increasing the number of publications per faculty member. Teaching, undergraduate education, the humanities and social sciences were ignored. We are still reaping the results of the poor policies of the early 2000s.
Young people have an undergraduate education aged 18-23 or so. These are tremendously important years for the formation and maturing of individuals. These are the years when young people start living on their own, start managing their own lives, have their first loves and heartbreaks, delve deeper into questions of identity and who they want to be as well as into existential questions, look hard at what they want to spend their life doing and start gaining a more comprehensive understanding of whatever they decide to study. What an important period. If we do not help and support the young in this period, and for most young people this can only be done through educational institutions, many will move forward without the education, knowledge, experiences and understanding that are needed for them to lead rewarding lives and in the process help their families, communities and the country.
Universities define entry criteria for admission, often narrowly, and create notions of ‘merit’. Then applicants are ranked on the basis of merit and students at the top of the list are offered admission. Top universities practically the world over, boast low ‘acceptance’ rates, saying they only take the top 5-10pc of the applicant pool. It is strange that the marketing and admission offices of these universities work hard to encourage larger numbers to apply for admission only to boast how many they have been able to reject!
This seems like a dated model for gauging quality. Most young people are capable of benefiting from undergraduate education, most have the baseline qualifications (12 years of schooling) to be able to do that, most will benefit a lot in terms of their career trajectories and prospects, as well as in terms of personal growth, other than the contributions they will be making to national progress, because of undergraduate education.
So why should the rejection of applicants be a mark of quality and why should it be something to be celebrated?
The real mark of quality should be the difference that a university has been able to make in the life, education, knowledge, understanding and skills of any student who spends four years at the institution. This is the notion of ‘value-added’ or the ‘delta’ the university has been able to provide.
With automation, digitisation and the advent of AI, the nature of jobs is changing and will continue to change for quite some time. Most jobs that do not require human agency will get automated. Jobs that will remain for humans will require, as a baseline, excellent interpersonal skills, communication skills, skills for argumentation, articulation, and skills for quick thinking and quick reaction other than advanced job-specific skills. For countries to survive and thrive in the economy of tomorrow, a larger number of young people will need to be educated and at a higher level. So, 8-9pc of young people getting, by and large, a poor quality of undergraduate education is not going to help. Some experts in the US argue that 50pc of their youth cohort needs to get an undergraduate education. We have to compete in the same economy. How are we going to do that?
Top-tier universities in Pakistan, public and private, emulate the old ‘low acceptance’ model of quality; the rest, with a varied quality of teaching and learning, do not focus on the task of teaching undergraduates well. University priorities have focused on establishing and expanding Master’s and doctoral programmes, while the faculty’s priority, as a result of promotion criteria, has been to publish as many papers as possible, using whatever means available. HEC sets the priorities, of course, but these priorities are wrong. They have still not been corrected.
The government wants to export more labour to the rest of the world. They believe this is the dividend our demography can give us. But we cannot export and others will not be willing to import if the labour is not educated and trained in the skills that are needed by the rest of the world. We need to reorient our universities to make them realise this. The real power lies in a solid or high-quality undergraduate education.
We need to see a lot more young people getting an undergraduate education of solid quality in Pakistan. We need undergraduate education to be more aligned with the markets of tomorrow, and our young people should come out with the foundational education, knowledge, understanding and skills needed to navigate what will be a far more complex labour market in the times to come. Will the higher-ups, regulators and universities wake up and smell the coffee?
https://www.dawn.com/news/1906367/undergraduate-focus
----
Legal Aspect Of Indus Waters Treaty Suspension
Ahmer Bilal Soofi
April 25, 2025
AFTER the dastardly incident at Pahalgam in India-held Kashmir, Pakistan immediately distanced itself in unequivocal terms from the perpetrators.
India, however, continues to insist that the incident was orchestrated directly or indirectly by the Pakistani state though no shred of evidence for its claim has been made public or shared with Pakistan. Obviously, India is acting with mala fide intent. Holding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance on the basis of its allegations is in stark violation of Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, which lays down that treaties “must be performed … in good faith”.
The unilateral holding in abeyance of the IWT will be treated by Pakistan as a casus belli and a step that is destructive to its vital national interests. Pakistan is heavily dependent on the Indus river system for its agricultural sector, which forms the backbone of the country’s economy. More than 80 per cent of Pakistan’s irrigation depends on water from the Indus Basin. Disruption of water supplies is bound to aggravate the existing water scarcity, reduce crop yields, and precipitate domestic unrest, especially in the water-stressed provinces of Punjab and Sindh.
In the Vienna Convention and IWT, there are no provisions for a treaty being ‘held in abeyance’. However, only in the Vienna Convention are there provisions with regard to the suspension of a treaty. It is therefore a question of law to be decided as a matter of first impression by a competent tribunal whether the terms ‘holding in abeyance’ and ‘suspension’ of a treaty are the same. In the absence of an authoritative pronouncement on this point in the context of the IWT, we are obliged, for the time being, to proceed on the assumption that the phrase ‘holding in abeyance’ is equivalent to ‘suspension’.
In the Vienna Convention, the provisions relating to the suspension of a treaty are laid down in Part V. Article 42 provides that a treaty may be suspended only in compliance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention. Article 57 of the Vienna Convention deals with the ‘suspension’ of treaties and provides that: “The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended: (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting states.”
Interestingly, the IWT does not contain any provision relating to its suspension, nor has India held any consultation with Pakistan in relation to its intent to suspend the treaty. The suspension of the IWT, therefore, is an egregious violation of the provisions of Articles 42 and 57 of the Vienna Convention. Another article of the Vienna Convention that allows the suspension of treaties is Article 60 which provides that a treaty may be suspended by a party only when it is breached by the other party. India’s suspension is not based on the allegation of any breach by Pakistan.
There is absolutely no doubt that India’s action is highly provocative as it is based on flimsy grounds and mala fide intent. A three-pronged course is advised in order to deal with the emergent situation:
Pakistan needs to weigh its options under the provisions of the IWT. Article IX of the treaty provides a mechanism for constituting a court of arbitration. However, there is a difficulty. In private international law, an arbitration clause in an agreement survives the abrogation or termination of the agreement. In the present case, which falls under public international law, it needs to be explored whether the arbitration clause in Article IX will survive the holding of the treaty in abeyance. However, it is clear that India will not be responding to any such initiative after it has declared the IWT’s abrogation.
Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council is authorised to examine cases which may be a threat to international peace and to take appropriate action to maintain international peace and security. Holding the IWT in abeyance will certainly lead to friction between India and Pakistan and may give rise to further disputes. This will threaten international peace if relations between the two nuclear powers deteriorate further. Non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace and security in modern times. This dispute, therefore, is suitable to be dealt with under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations by the UN Security Council. The Security Council is authorised, pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter, to grant provisional relief, subject to the final resolution of the dispute referred to it under Article 39 of the Charter.
The statement given by the five permanent members of the Security Council in June 1998, in which they undertook to intervene in case a threat to peace arose between the two nuclear powers, may be utilised as a reminder to the said states to play their agreed and promised role. For this purpose, communication may be officially conveyed to each member of the P5 documenting Pakistan’s legal and strategic arguments.
The IWT is the only treaty between India and Pakistan that has survived three major wars, uprisings in Jammu and Kashmir and various parts of India and Pakistan, and the military crisis of 2002. The treaty is cited across the world as a shining example of the successful settlement of a transboundary water basin conflict. Pakistan’s National Security Committee has announced a number of actions that constitute legitimate counter-measures under international law. It is hoped that the UN secretary general’s office will play a role at the earliest before the situation deteriorates further.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1906366/legal-aspect-of-indus-waters-treaty-suspension
------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/indus-waters-treaty-pope-peace-weaponised-legal/d/135300
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism