DPM Ishaq Dar to undertake official visit to UK from tomorrow
During his visit, FM Dar will hold meetings in London with his British counterpart Angela Rayner, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pakistan Hamish Falconer and Commonwealth Secretary-General Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey, the Foreign Office said.
Pakistan, UK agree to deepen defence cooperation
Dar will also inaugurate Punjab Land Record Authority's project, piloted at the Pakistan High Commission, London. The initiative aims to assist members of the diaspora in resolving land documentation issues in Pakistan remotely.
The DPM, who was set to meet the British-Pakistani community during his two-days visit to the UK, cancelled the community event, expressing solidarity with the flood-victims in Pakistan.
In a show of solidarity, the foreign minister announced he would not hold his planned community interaction with the British Pakistani diaspora. He expressed his solidarity with those who are grieving and said a need to ensure full attention remains on national relief efforts.
'My sincere regrets to all the organisers of the community event,' he said.
Earlier the FO said, the foreign minister will interact with the British Parliamentarians, Kashmiri leaders and representatives of the British-Pakistani community as well.
The death toll from heavy rains and flooding in Pakistan has crossed 300, local officials were quoted as saying by Reuters on Saturday.
Hundreds have been killed in recent weeks as Pakistan experienced more rain than usual during the current monsoon season, washing away roads and buildings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Why Pakistan did not become an Islamic state
Of the fourscore or so countries that have majority Muslim populations at this time in their evolution, Pakistan occupies a unique position. It is the only one that was created out of a large geographic space – in its case the Indian British Colony – to accommodate the people of the Islamic faith. All other Muslim nations were either the product of the spread of Islam when the religion was founded by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or were the fragments of the large Ottoman Empire built by the Turkish rulers who brought under their control all of the present day Middle East and parts of Africa and southern Europe. All these were Muslim states that were to be governed by some aspects of the Islamic faith. That was not to be case with Pakistan, a state that was the outcome of a political movement that succeeded in pushing out from colonial India, long ruled by the British. As discussed below and was dealt with in the article in this space last week, of Pakistan's four immediate neighbours, three have chosen to be governed by whichever faith most of their citizens were following. Afghanistan and Iran have adopted extremist Islam as the governing philosophy – with the former opting for Sunni extremism, and the latter for extremist Shiism. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is building a Hindu nation by adopting what it calls Hindutva. It has also changed the name of the country to Bharat. Why did Pakistan not go in this direction? To answer this question, we need to go back into history and discuss the origins of Pakistan as a nation-state. The movement for the expulsion of Britain from the Indian sub-continent was led by a group of Indian leaders, Hindus and Muslims, who were educated in British institutions and mostly studied law. The most prominent of these was Mohandas Gandhi and Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Both belonged to small business communities in the Western part of British India. Gandhi was from the state of Gujarat and Jinnah form across the border In the Province of Sindh. Having studied law, they returned to India but did not join the legal profession. Jinnah worked for a while as a lawyer and built a successful practice in Bombay, now called Mumbai, for a while but then switched to politics. While Gandhi wanted Britain to leave the large colony over which they had ruled for centuries, Jinnah wanted to protect the rights and cultures of the large Muslim minority. Had Winston Churchill who had led Britain during the Second World War continued as his country's prime minister, he would not have accepted the Indian leadership's demand for independence. But he and the Tory Party that he led lost the elections in 1945, and Clement Attlee of the opposition Labour Party became the prime minister. From the time he took over as the country's leader, he declared his intention to quit India. To get Britain out of India, he appointed Lord Louis Mountbatten, a distinguished member of the British Royal Family, to become India's last Viceroy and plan to hand over the governance of the large colony to the Indian leadership. Mountbatten arrived in New Delhi with the mission to transfer the government to the Indian leadership but that turned out to be a more difficult task than he believed would be the case when he accepted the assignment. The Indian political system was divided into three large groups: the Indian National Congress, (INC), the All-India Muslim League (AIML) and the Akali Dal (AD). The INC was dominated by the leaders belonging to the large Hindu community which in the late 1940s was estimated to number 300 million or 75 per cent of the total; close to 25 per cent were Muslims; and a small number was made up of the Sikh community based almost entirely in the province of Punjab. The INC wanted monopoly of power once the British went home while the Muslim community wanted to protect its way of life in independent India which would be dominated by the more numerous community. Jinnah, the AIML leader, proposed sharing of power between Hindus and Muslims but the formula he proposed was not acceptable to the Hindu leadership. That led him to demand the establishment of a country that would serve the social, political and economic interests of the Muslim community. Were such a country to be founded it should be called Pakistan, suggested Rahmat Ali, a Muslim student enrolled in Cambridge University. Pakistan, of course meant the "land of the pure", but the political entity Jinnah wanted to found had nothing to do with the Islamic faith. That was the reason why Pakistan's creation was opposed by Jamaat-e-Islami, led by Maulana Maududi who wanted Pakistan to be the central state in what he wanted to establish as the "Muslim Ummah" made up of the countries with Muslim majorities. However, from the very beginning, Jinnah made it clear that he was seeking to establish a Muslim state, not an Islamic state. This he made clear in a speech he delivered on August, 11, 1947 at the Constituent Assembly which was to draft a constitution for the new country. He spoke of an inclusive and impartial government, religious freedom and equality for all. It was made clear that Jinnah had worked hard not to create a country with a state religion. In such a country, there cannot be serious departures from the practices made explicit by the state religion. Even in such a state, the government permits religious practices of other communities besides those who belong to the state religion. It does not persecute believers in other faiths or those who have no faith at all. Jinnah died soon after the creation of Pakistan. His successor, Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951 while he was speaking at a public park. These two deaths left serious political space which eleven years after the creation on Pakistan was occupied by the military. In October 1958, General Ayub Khan assumed control of the country and imposed martial law. In 1962, he gave the country a constitution that did not give special status to religion in governance. In fact, the main feature of the constitution was considerable power given to local councils. They were part of a multi-tiered system in which the members of the lowest tier, called the Union Councils, were directly elected by the people. Ayub Khan had three military successors who together ruled the country for 33 years. All but General Zia Ul Haq were secular minded. But even Zia's attempt to bring religion into governance was weak and did not survive his death in a plane crash in 1988.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Pakistan has video evidence of downed six Indian aircraft, says Mohsin Naqvi
Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi on Sunday that Pakistan has video evidence of six Indian aircraft, which were shot down during the recent military conflict between the two neighbouring nuclear states. Speaking at a seminar hosted by the Professor Waris Mir Foundation at Aiwan-e-Iqbal, titled 'Global Impacts of Pakistan's Military and Diplomatic Victories over India', the minister stressed that the country's intelligence and defense preparedness outmatched India at every level. Naqvi said, 'We have videos of six Indian aircraft that were shot down.' He said it was decided that no announcement would be made until field evidence was obtained, 'and believe me, we had it within minutes.' Pak-India conflict: Indian opposition assails Modi for failures Naqvi credited Pakistan's intelligence agencies for providing real-time information during the conflict. 'Every decision made in India, every flight their aircraft took — we knew in advance. This was the extraordinary work of our intelligence agencies, the silent warriors who rarely get the credit they deserve,' he said. He also spoke of divine protection, recounting an incident in which seven Indian missiles targeted a major Pakistani base but failed to hit it. 'Some missiles fell short, some landed to the side, but none hit the base. It was nothing short of a miracle,' he added. In contrast, Naqvi said that Pakistan's retaliatory missile strikes hit India's largest oil storage facility with precision. The interior minister praised Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir's leadership, saying he led with great courage and bravery. 'At that time, a delegation from the Saudi government visited Pakistan. The delegation had come from India to Pakistan, seeking peace. The field marshal told them: 'India is like a shining Mercedes, but we are like a dumper truck loaded with stones. Now imagine what will happen when the two collide.' The members of the delegation remained silent,' he said. The minister also highlighted that for the first time, the army, air force, and navy devised a joint strategy and fought the war under one plan. Whereas, he said India's each service chief reported separately to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. '…their viewpoints were entirely different and split. The result was before the world.' Naqvi said that two key figures behind India's strategy were National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Home Minister Amit Shah, not Modi himself. 'These two will be responsible for Modi's downfall and for the damage they are bringing to India,' he warned. IAF chief must have claimed downing Pakistan's aircraft under pressure: defence analyst He also emphasised political unity within Pakistan during the conflict, stating that all parties stood together. 'The Indian delegation failed to lobby international support, particularly in the U.S., while Pakistan's diplomatic front, led by the PPP chairman, was far more effective,' he said. Naqvi further stated India sponsored terrorism in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan, and used post-9/11 narratives to delegitimise the Kashmiri freedom movement. The seminar was also addressed by Chairman Senate Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani and Speaker Punjab Assembly Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
A terror tag and a diplomatic turn
Just days before President Donald Trump's inauguration for the second term, a senior Pakistani diplomat briefed a group of people including experts and journalists in Islamabad. His focus was on the Pakistan-US relationship under Trump's administration. The bottom line was: Pakistan should be prepared for a tough challenge. According to the diplomat, Trump's team was surrounded by people who had little sympathy for Pakistan. Experts and those who understand Trump as well as the nature of Pakistan-US ties echoed similar sentiments. There was consensus that despite the unpredictable nature of Trump, there was little or no room for better prospects of Pakistan-US ties. On the contrary, everyone agreed that the relationship between the US and India would only deepen under President Trump's second term. But when President Trump delivered a maiden address to the US Congress, he praised Pakistan. This was some achievement given that until then he spared no one. He launched a diatribe both against friends and foes. Pakistan was the only exception, which Trump mentioned in a positive way. His praise stemmed from Pakistan's assistance in arresting one of the key masterminds of the Abbey Gate bombing in Kabul in August 2021. Muhammad Sharifullah, one of the ISIS-Khorasan operatives and according to the US was one of the facilitators of Kabul Airport attack, was apprehended on the intelligence provided by the CIA and swiftly handed over to the US. That cooperation not only earned Pakistan praise from Trump but also opened a channel of communication that would eventually lead to Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir being invited to launch at the White House in an unprecedented turn of events. When Trump applauded Pakistan at the US Congress, people were still sceptical that this bonhomie would be short-lived as Trump cannot be trusted. Questions were raised about what Pakistan had offered or was going to offer to the US in return for this cozying up approach of the US? Many people also wonder whether Pakistan would get anything in return. But what happened over the past few weeks following high-level exchanges and frequent interactions between the two countries was that Trump's praise was not mere rhetoric but now reflecting a shift in the US policy. The substantive outcome of Pakistan helping Trump to advance his domestic agenda by arresting Abbey Gate bombing facilitator was the US State Department's move to declare Balochistan Liberation Army and its suicide squad Majeed Brigade as terrorist outfit. The designation of BLA and the Majeed Brigade, as Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTO), was a major victory for Pakistan. Islamabad had long sought its listing but with little success. The US declared Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as a terrorist outfit but successive US administrations refrained from taking a similar stance against groups active in Balochistan. One of the reasons included that such groups including BLA and Majeed Brigade were targeting not just the Pakistani interests but also primarily the Chinese interests in the resource-rich Balochistan province. This in many ways probably served the agendas of those who don't want China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to succeed. That was the reason the US decision was extraordinary. The United States not only listed BLA and Majeed Brigade but also seems to be ready to extend cooperation to Pakistan to fight them. The two countries held counterterrorism dialogue, a regular feature, in Islamabad recently. The noticeable change was that for the first time BLA made it to the joint statement. Both delegations underscored the 'critical importance' of developing effective approaches to terrorist threats, singling out the BLA alongside transnational outfits. Washington lauded Islamabad's 'continued successes' in containing entities that threaten regional and global peace. Therefore, listing of BLA and Majeed Brigade is a development that carries legal, political, diplomatic, and operational implications for Pakistan, the US, and even India. First, any BLA or Majeed Brigade funds or property in the US jurisdiction are now frozen. Members and affiliates are barred from entering the US. Providing material support to the group is now a serious US federal crime, even for individuals outside the US if they have US connections. The designation makes it harder for BLA to raise funds internationally through charities, front companies, or sympathetic diaspora groups. The FTO tag makes it riskier for members to travel abroad or seek asylum in countries aligned with US counterterrorism policies. The US can now more actively share intelligence with Pakistan and allies to track, disrupt, or eliminate the group's cells. Diaspora-based sympathisers in the West could face monitoring and prosecution. If BLA finds safe havens in neighbouring states including Afghanistan, the US listing pressures those governments to take action or face reputational costs. While the designation won't end the insurgency, it can weaken its external support structure, especially for high-profile suicide attacks like those by the Majeed Brigade. Second, Pakistan has long stated that BLA is a foreign-backed terrorist group responsible for attacks in Balochistan. The US designation is an international endorsement of that position. Third, India has openly supported Baloch separatists. The US move signals that Washington is not aligning with New Delhi on this issue. Fourth, this listing highlights a warming security relationship between Pakistan and the US. Fifth, quietly, this could create discomfort in New Delhi if US counterterrorism measures start exposing any Indian contacts with Baloch separatists. It is not said publicly but the US move could also be linked to its keen interest in the untapped mines and minerals resources available in abundance in Balochistan. But security is a major challenge. Some view the US interest in mines and minerals with suspicion. The view, nevertheless, in official Pakistani circles is that the US investment in Balochistan could stabilise the situation and it may lay the bases for long-term cooperation between the two countries. The listing of BLA and Majeed Brigade is being seen in that context.
