National Assembly passes resolution praising armed forces for exemplary professionalism
National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously passed a resolution commending the armed forces for their 'exemplary professionalism, vigilance and courage' in defending the country's sovereignty in response to unprovoked Indian aggression, Radio Pakistan reported.
The resolution, moved by Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, lauded the military's 'exceptional restraint and responsibility,' describing the response to Indian strikes as 'measured and befitting.'
Glimpses from today's session of the National Assembly.#NASession pic.twitter.com/2RdgiOWahA — National Assembly 🇵🇰 (@NAofPakistan) May 12, 2025
In response to continued Indian aggression following a deadly attack in Pahalgam, Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), India launched missile strikes on Pakistani military bases. The Pakistan Armed Forces responded with the launch of 'Operation Bunyanum Marsoos'.
Read More: 'Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos'
Today, National Assembly paid tribute to the fallen soldiers, acknowledging their sacrifices as a symbol of 'national pride, resilience, and unity.' Lawmakers also bowed in prayer, thanking Almighty Allah for granting the nation honour in defending its territorial integrity.
The resolution congratulated the Pakistani people for standing united across the political spectrum during the recent crisis. It also expressed gratitude to 'friendly countries' that supported Pakistan during what it called a critical juncture.
Reaffirming Pakistan's commitment to regional and global peace, the resolution stated that 'democracies are committed to dialogue, not conflict.' It added that long-term stability in South Asia could only be achieved through 'sincere and structured negotiations.'
Read More: PM Shehbaz confirms immediate Pakistan-India ceasefire
The House called for active international engagement to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with the aspirations of the Kashmiri people and relevant UN Security Council resolutions. It further emphasised the importance of the Indus Waters Treaty, framing water security as a vital component of national security.
National Assembly reaffirmed its commitment to playing its constitutional role in promoting peace, unity, and the protection of national interests.
On Saturday, following days of intense military exchanges that raised fears of a full-scale conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, Pakistan and India agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after the intervention of US President Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
34 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Doctrine of spectacle, optics of defeat
Narendra Modi may have thought May would bring his finest hour. After successively upping the ante with Pakistan each time militancy revisited Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), his regime had a playbook ready. Pakistan, scapegoated for its own failures in the disputed territory, would be 'taught a lesson'. So what if the last time had brought an Indian jet or two down - for his right-wing constituency, surely lessons had been learnt, 'strategic costs' exacted. Pakistan, wracked with its own issues, political and economic, surely couldn't keep up with the doctrine of disproportionate response that Modi's government had so carefully cultivated. And so India's military brass was given carte blanche and Operation Sindoor was launched. Within hours, however, or minutes rather, it was clear it would hang like an albatross around the Modi government's neck. This week, as India's Parliament reconvened for its monsoon session, the government faced its moment of reckoning. Far from a victory lap, the debate on Operation Sindoor unfolded under a cloud of unease. Home Minister Amit Shah doubled down, telling lawmakers that the terrorists responsible for the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which sparked the crisis, had been 'neutralised' in a separate mission dubbed Operation Mahadev. But the timing of the announcement, conspicuously aligned with the parliamentary session, raised eyebrows. Was this a genuine update or political theatre crafted to retake control of the narrative? Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, who has shown increasing comfort playing disruptor, wasn't buying it. He demanded transparency about the costs of the operation, questioning why, if the mission had truly succeeded, India had to rely on external mediation to stop hostilities. Mediating an end to hostilities and saving South Asia from 'nuclear catastrophe' is something US President Donald Trump has relished taking credit for at every visible opportunity in the weeks since Operation Sindoor. To the point that some might wonder if he's deriving some kind of childish pleasure at rubbing the Modi regime's nose in the fact that, despite all the nationalist bluster, it was Washington's call, not Delhi's directive, that drew the curtain on this act of brinkmanship. Trump has crowed about it in back-to-back press conferences, lauded the 'excellent cooperation' from Pakistan, and all but issued a mid-crisis scorecard where Modi's government came off as the reckless actor in need of supervision. That narrative hasn't gone unnoticed by India's commentariat either, many of whom are beginning to ask uncomfortable questions about the costs of strategic adventurism in a multipolar world. This wasn't how Modi's third term was supposed to begin. The BJP's electoral dominance had promised continuity, certainty and a no-apologies foreign policy. Instead, barely two months into the new term, the headlines are saturated with words like 'escalation,' 'de-escalation,' 'backchannel,' and 'restraint.' And while New Delhi insists Operation Sindoor was a "necessary corrective" to Pakistan's "intransigence," the emerging consensus — even among India's own national security elite — is that the operation failed to deliver anything close to a strategic reset. More telling is the emerging discourse in Indian op-eds. Writers sympathetic to the BJP have pivoted from triumphalism to tactical justification. The more independent-minded, however, are not pulling punches. In The Wire, author and analyst Pushparaj Deshpande laid bare the contradictions in the government's own account. 'Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed in Parliament that 'Indian armed forces were given full freedom (operationally to attack Pakistan)'. Yet, this assertion was contradicted by a former Defence Attaché who revealed that the Indian Air Force suffered avoidable losses due to political instructions barring strikes on Pakistani military installations and air defence systems,' he wrote. Likewise, Deshpande pointed out, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's claim in the Rajya Sabha that 'Pakistan could not cause any damage on the Indian side' was directly contradicted by India's Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), who confirmed the loss of IAF fighter jets during clashes with Pakistan. 'These collectively suggest a deliberate attempt by the BJP government to obfuscate the true costs of the operation, presumably to protect Prime Minister Modi's strongman image,' he concluded. An editorial in The Hindu struck a similar note: 'The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change [what India claims is] the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience… A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy… But there is no evidence yet that it is working, though there has been chest-thumping around it by the ruling party… The success of this approach is debatable.' The piece went further, interrogating the government's conflicting claims: 'The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by US President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it.' The editorial didn't mince words in its closing assessment: 'The [Indian] government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing… There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them.' Outside India's borders and increasingly within them, the perception right now is this: India gambled on a quick, decisive action to reassert regional dominance and instead found itself walking back under international supervision, explaining away unverified kill counts and avoiding questions about the downing of its own aircraft. And it's not just editorial writers raising the alarm. Retired military officials and policy analysts — many once aligned with the strategic assertiveness of Modi's vision — are now questioning the long-term viability of what they call 'performance deterrence': the idea that visible, punitive strikes can substitute for sustainable strategy. This course correction seems to be taking place even as official channels try to project confidence. India's External Affairs Ministry insists that Operation Sindoor sent an 'unmistakable message,' and BJP-aligned commentators have tried to reframe the operation as a success precisely because it avoided wider war. But that sleight of hand is unlikely to hold for long. The unanswered question — why initiate an escalatory doctrine if it must be abandoned mid-act under diplomatic pressure — is now echoing not just through think tanks and newsrooms, but also among voters who expected their government to dictate terms, not negotiate ceasefires via foreign capitals. The irony is bitter. Modi's strongest claim to geopolitical heft had always been his ability to align nationalist sentiment with realpolitik calculation. But this time, Washington and Beijing — both eager to preserve regional stability — appeared more in control of the crisis calendar than Delhi did. And Islamabad, far from being 'taught a lesson,' emerged with diplomatic points scored and international credibility strengthened by its restraint and readiness to engage. Whether Modi's government will learn from this episode remains to be seen. But one thing is already clear: the playbook that brought him to this moment may not carry him much further. Not without reckoning with the limits of spectacle, and the growing costs of overreach.
Express Tribune
34 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Trump wins his deal, Pakistan eyes the future
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan said that at first when someone says let's impose tariffs on some foreign imports, it looks like they are doing the patriotic thing by protecting the American products and jobs and sometimes for a short while it works but only for a short-time. He went on to say that high tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Thirty-eight years down the line, President Donald Trump has done exactly the opposite to it, which forced the world capitals to rush to Washington to get some respite at least until they come up with better alternatives. The US-Pakistan trade deal in the aftermath of Donald Trump's protectionist policy has apparently given an edge to Washington. But the deal has the potential to benefit Pakistan in many ways, starting from gaining political advantage, retaining market access to the US and luring back American companies after a long time. The US-Pakistan trade deal has consolidated political relations between the two nations after Islamabad accepted a minimum 19% tariffs on its exports to the states but agreed to a duty-free access to American products against over 4,100 tariff lines with complete market access. Where the concessions have kept the doors of the US markets open for Pakistani exporters, the deal has lured the United States interest back in Pakistan's economy, particularly after Washington was wary of growing Chinese penetration in Pakistan. The government of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also stands ready to welcome the US investment in extraction of rare earth metals –the most sought after minerals in the world, which require new technologies and investments. For some, Pakistan would have negotiated much better tariffs but given the country's political and economic standing the deal after all is better one, if not the best. Through the new Executive Order of July 31st, hours before the expiry of the deadline to negotiate deals, President Donald Trump stated that after considering the information and recommendations he determined that it is necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency by imposing additional ad valorem duties on goods of certain trading partners. As a result, Pakistan now faces a 19% tariff on its exports to the United States. The revised tariff for Pakistan is down from the previous retaliatory tax of 29%, which was announced as a threat to come on the negotiations table. Importantly, the revised tariff is over and above the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff, which means 19% is the minimum rate. Prime Minister's Coordinator on Commerce Rana Ihsaan Afzal said this at Pakistan's only premier show on economy, The Review, that 19% tariff was over and above the MFN tariff. In the last fiscal year, Pakistan exported $6 billion worth of goods to the US compared to $2.4 billion imports, earning a surplus of $3.7 billion, a source of concern for President Donald Trump. Pakistan has still gained relative advantage over several regional neighbours under the new US tariff regime, with its 19% rate lower than India's 25%, Bangladesh's 20%, Iraq's 35%, Vietnam's 20%, and equal to Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia's 19%. There appears to be political signaling in setting the new rates by President Donald Trump. On April 2, President Trump announced a 26% tariff for India and set its final rate at 25%, lower than Pakistan's 29% at that time. But he has now kept the Indian tariffs 6% above the Pakistan tariffs. The US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick apprised the Pakistani negotiating team that he had been instructed by Donald Trump to conclude a favourable deal with investment in mines, minerals and cooperation in areas of artificial intelligence, crypto currencies, digital infrastructure and rare earth metals to help Pakistan's economy. This was also acknowledged by Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb who said that the deal was a win-win due to Washington's interest to invest in Pakistan. It was probably for the first time in over a decade that the US has shown any serious interest in Pakistan's economy. A better part of the last one decade was consumed in US attempts to undermine the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through using its diplomatic muscles and influencing the nation's economic policies through arm-twisting by the International Monetary Fund. It is said that Field Marshal and Chief of the Army Staff Asim Munir's meeting with President Donald Trump helped break the ice. Pakistani negotiators also expressed constructive approach toward the US demands, which helped to get something in return of giving complete market access. The deal's fine points are that Washington has gained market access at zero tariffs. Initially, there were reports that the US would be charged no import tariff against its exports on 1,714 tariff lines. Commerce Coordinator Rana Ihsaan disclosed in The Review programme, that the US has also been offered additional 2,400 tariff lines at zero rate, which are currently only available to China. Rana Ihsaan said that the US would get zero tariffs on over 4,100 tariff lines. Pakistan was negotiating the effectiveness of zero rates on US imports against 4,100 tariff lines from July 2026 due to needed legislative changes and also because of negative revenue implications. The United States had set two key demands for a trade deal with Pakistan: lower tariffs on its exports to Pakistan to zero with total access to markets; and exemption to its companies from 5% tax imposed under the Digital Presence Proceeds Act 2025. Hours before President Donald Trump's announcement that his administration reached a deal with Pakistan, the Federal Board of Revenue issued a notification to withdraw the 5% tax. There have been concerns in the Pakistani camps that since zero-duty access is in breach of the World Trade Organization framework, Pakistan's other trading partners might object to the huge concession. To deal with the matter, there is a possibility that both sides show intentions to sign a Preferential Trade Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement. President Donald Trump also talked about exploring Pakistan's oil reserves with US companies. A Petroleum Division official said that there was a possibility that any US company can participate in the upcoming offshore drilling. The Express Tribune reported last week that the Petroleum Division was seeking bids from interested investors to grant rights for drilling on offshore wells and it would open the bids on October 31, 2025. For some, the US interest in Pakistan's oil and gas sector was surprising. But as a matter of fact, the US companies have in the past too played a role in oil drilling. The country currently produces 73,000 barrel per day oil, which is hardly equal to 15% of its total daily needs. The remaining over 550,000 barrels is imported, which costs the nation annually between $11 billion to $14 billion, depending upon the global oil prices. There has also been a criticism that Pakistan has given too much in return of getting only 10% relief against initially announced retaliatory tariffs. But the Pakistani negotiators said that Washington was not willing to step back from its demand of complete market access. The Donald Trump administration also used the India card in these negotiations. Pakistani negotiators were told that India was ready to give market access on 90% proposed tariff lines by the US but President Trump rejected the demand. With Pakistani minimum tariffs still lower than regional peers, our exporters expect the status quo to the least. They do not see any loss of market in the shorter term. Nonetheless, the behavioral change of the US consumers due to the now high cost of consumer goods cannot be ruled out, which impacts orders in the longer run. The enhanced tariffs would do more damage to the US competitiveness and appetite for innovation due to further protection that its industries have received in the shape of 10% to 41% increase in import taxes against various countries. Pakistani policymakers may also have to offer more than just lower than regional tariffs mantra by cutting the interest rates at least 5%, bringing stability in the exchange rate regime, clearing pending tax refunds to lower the cost and reducing the taxes on industries along with at least one-third reduction in energy tariffs. Until an enabling and regionally competitive environment is not provided to exporters, the country cannot take much benefit from any trade deal. The exporters too have to adopt the new technologies and stop parking a portion of their export receipts abroad to win the trust of the policymakers.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Children in besieged Gaza dying at 'an unprecedented rate'
Listen to article The UN Children's Fund, UNICEF, has urged the international community to act swiftly to prevent the mass death of children in the Gaza Strip, where conditions continue to deteriorate amid Israel's deadly war. "Today, I want to keep the focus on Gaza, because it's in Gaza where the suffering is most acute and where children are dying at an unprecedented rate. "We are at a crossroads, and the choices made now will determine whether tens of thousands of children live or die," Ted Chaiban, UNICEF's deputy executive director, said at a briefing on his recent travel to the Middle East. The months-long deprivation of most life-sustaining basic goods has led to a deepening of the crisis. More than 100 people were killed, and hundreds of others injured, along food convoy routes and near Israeli-militarized distribution hubs in the past two days alone. As one in three people currently going days without food, OCHA reiterated that no one should ever be forced to risk their life to get something to eat. Chaiban, who is fresh from a visit to Gaza, noted that "the marks of deep suffering and hunger were visible on the face of families and children." "Gaza now faces a grave risk of famine," he said, briefing reporters in New York about his five-day mission to the enclave, the West Bank and Israel. "This is something that has been building up, but we now have two indicators that have exceeded the famine threshold." The crisis can only be addressed through unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza, with commercial supplies also allowed to enter to help address people's needs. Nearly a week since the Israeli announcement to allow the scale up of aid and tactical pauses to allow safe passage of UN convoys, OCHA reported that the aid that has entered Gaza so far remains insufficient, while UN convoys continue to face impediments and danger along the routes provided by the Israeli authorities. "Civilians must always be protected and community-level aid delivery at scale must be facilitated, not obstructed," said OCHA. "The children I met are not victims of a natural disaster. They are being starved, bombed, and displaced," Mr. Chaiban said. He noted that more than 18,000 boys and girls have been killed since the beginning of the war, "an average of 28 children a day, the size of a classroom, gone." While in Gaza, Chaiban met with the families of the 10 children killed and 19 injured by an Israeli airstrike as they were queuing for food with their mothers and fathers at a UNICEF-supported nutrition clinic in Deir Al-Balah. Engaging with Israeli authorities in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, UNICEF "pressed for a review of [Israel's] military rules of engagement to protect civilians and children," Chaiban said.
