Come to a Pakistandstill: India wields Indus Treaty as strategic weapon to isolate Pakistan over terror
India has always helped nations in the neighbourhood – Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. This benevolence yielded results for the economic renaissance of these countries. But Pakistan was the odd one out, digging a deep trench for itself even as India tried its best to engage with it for peace and prosperity.
The benevolent, tactical 'Sada-e-Sarhad' bus diplomacy of the Vajpayee government, initiating a passage of people's movement through borders, promising to foster abundant trade and commerce, never fructified. Successive military rules, directly or by proxy, orchestrating anti- India moves, ensured only frosty results.
Such non-economic intervention has ensured that Pakistan GDP has grown at a snail's pace, flip-flopping from $339 bn in FY17 to $373 bn in FY24. Average growth comes to less than 1.5% in the intermittent period, even as average inflation since FY21 stands at 16.8% with red-hot high price prints of 29.2% and 23.4% in FY23 and FY24, respectively. The Pakistani rupee, mirroring internal fractures of a failed state, depreciated by 100% between September 2021 and August 2023 in a vicious cycle. While both food and energy have retraced in recent days, there are apparently fault lines in the calculation methodology, as share of food and beverages comes at just 36% in its CPI basket.Unsurprisingly, Pakistan stands 13th in terms of countries with highest defence spending as percentage of GDP. Market capitalisation of the KSE-100-led Pakistan Stock Exchange is only 15% of total GDP, undermining investors' lack of confidence even as KSE-100 has remained flat YTD.The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) report puts the rural population percentage at about 63% for the fifth most-populous country on the planet, its current population estimated to be more than 25 cr. Livelihoods of Pakistan's rural population are mainly agriculture-based, which, in turn, is dependent chiefly on irrigation. This, even as close to 40% of the population lives BPL.
Read More Adani Enterprises weighs stake sale in Wilmar | ET Now analysis
There lies the economic significance of IWT, as Punjab remains the largest economy in Pakistan, contributing close to 60% in national output. Sindh, second-largest province in terms of population and GDP, factors close to 25%. Share of agriculture in GDP stood at 24% in 2024, falling from a high of 30.6% in 2000-01. But it continues to shoulder around two- third of the population, directly or indirectly. Two of Pakistan's largest exports, textiles and basmati rice, depend on irrigation dynamics even as trade deficit threatens to vault in a volatile tariff- induced environment.
The road to Brussels goes through Rome, is a well-accepted preamble, cementing the belief that long-term peace comes at the cost of innumerable sacrifices. When Atal Bihari Vajpayee wrote in the visitor's book at Lahore's Minar-e-Pakistan in 1999 that a 'stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest. Let no one in Pakistan be in doubt. India sincerely wishes Pakistan well,' Islamabad mistook it as Indian weakness, surreptitiously preparing to capture Kargil.
It's time the people of Pakistan realise that India can be a friendly neighbour. Or be made to revisit 1971. The choice is completely in their hands. As for agencies like IMF, which have frequently bailed out Pakistan, they would do well to introspect if common, scarce global resources should be put in the hands of a rogue nation on the brink of anarchy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
14 minutes ago
- CNBC
Goldman says it's time to play the meme stocks again
We are so back. The S & P 500 and Nasdaq Composite scored fresh record highs on Tuesday, as expectations of a lower overnight lending rate from the Federal Reserve reawakened animal spirits on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs also pointed out that this latest run to all-time highs coincides with increased retail participation by Main Street investors — which could signal it's time to delve into meme stocks once again. "Recent weeks have seen a resumption of retail buying activity in S & P 500 and [Nasdaq] 100 stocks, and we believe the meme stock resurgence has spread into the broader buying of large-cap stocks," strategist John Marshall wrote. "Given the pickup in retail trading, we see the potential for elevated upside asymmetry in stocks with high retail participation in the coming weeks," he added. According to Goldman, among the S & P 500 stocks that have seen high retail participation over the past month in terms of net retail activity are the following: Palantir — $1.2 billion AMD — $774 million KeyCorp — $163 million Electronic Arts — $42 million Albemarle — $19 million UPS — $123 million Warner Bros Discovery — $167 million "Our data shows that retail investors were more focused on small-caps in the crypto/AI/retail/quantum-computing spaces during the past several weeks than on large-cap names. Professional investors have also stepped up their participation through the futures/swaps/options channels … and we see further upside, as the case for a September rate cut is more likely," Marshall said. To be sure, the retail momentum could be derailed if new data ahead of the Fed's September meeting shows a reversal to the upside in inflation trends. But for now, if Goldman is correct, investors may want to buy meme stocks like it's 2021. Elsewhere Wednesday morning on Wall Street, Piper Sandler raised its price target on Nvidia to $225 , signaling about 23% upside. The move comes ahead of the chipmaker's earnings due out later this month. "We are expecting another positive quarter from NVDA and see upside to numbers for both the July and October quarters," analyst Harsh Kumar said. "While we are modeling largely in-line for the July quarter and slightly below Street for October, we are calling for upside given the recent positive commentary from U.S. hyperscalers as well as the inclusion of revenues from China."
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores Major Legal Win in Accessing Sensitive Data of Millions
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A divided federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can access sensitive personal data held by several federal agencies, rejecting claims that the move violates privacy protections. In a 2-1 decision issued on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a lower court's preliminary injunction that had blocked DOGE-related personnel from obtaining administrator-level access to information at the Treasury Department, the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education. The ruling remands the case for further proceedings. Newsweek has contacted DOGE for comment via email outside regular office hours. The Justice Department declined to comment following the ruling. Why It Matters A divided federal appeals court ruling in favor of DOGE could significantly shift the balance between privacy protections and executive authority. The decision to grant embedded cross-agency teams broad, administrator-level access to sensitive personal data—including Social Security numbers, tax records and health information—strengthens the president's ability to direct internal modernization efforts across the federal bureaucracy. It also sets a potential precedent that could make it harder for unions, advocacy groups and individuals to challenge similar data-access policies in the future, narrowing judicial oversight when efficiency initiatives intersect with privacy concerns. Anti-DOGE protesters outside the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Washington, D.C., on February 5. Anti-DOGE protesters outside the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in Washington, D.C., on February 5. Alex Wong/Getty What To Know The case stems from an executive order that President Donald Trump signed on January 20, which created DOGE to modernize "Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." The order directed agency heads to establish internal DOGE teams and provide "full and prompt access" to unclassified systems and records. Initially headed by Elon Musk, DOGE has been a controversial element of Trump's second term, overseeing spending and staffing cuts across agencies and facing multiple lawsuits. As a special government employee, Musk could serve in the role for only 130 days, and his tenure as the head of DOGE ended in May shortly before a public disagreement with the president. In February, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction limiting DOGE affiliates' access to certain data. The appeals court stayed that injunction in April pending appeal. The plaintiffs—a coalition that includes the American Federation of Teachers, several other labor unions and individual recipients of government benefits—had argued that granting DOGE affiliates such access violated the federal Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They said the data involved could include Social Security numbers, citizenship information, tax records, health histories and other personal identifiers. Judge Julius Richardson, joined by Judge G. Steven Agee, concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to justify preliminary relief. Writing for the majority, Richardson said, "The Privacy Act does not prohibit sharing information with those whose jobs give them good reason to access it." He also compared DOGE's broad modernization mandate to that of a consultant who must first survey systems to determine necessary improvements. The opinion also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue, noting that they had not alleged their specific records had been accessed, and whether the actions at issue constituted "final agency action" under the APA. The court further observed that the Privacy Act's civil remedies might preclude APA-based claims for equitable relief. Richardson's opinion cited a June U.S. Supreme Court order in a separate case that allowed DOGE access to Social Security Administration data while litigation continued. "This case and that one are exceedingly similar," Richardson wrote, adding that the precedent informed the court's equitable discretion. In dissent, Judge Robert King argued that the district court acted "quickly—but extremely carefully" in blocking DOGE's access given the scope and sensitivity of the data. King warned that the executive order had granted "unfettered, unprecedented, and apparently unnecessary access" to personal information for millions of Americans and criticized the majority for adopting what he described as a "heightened standard" for likelihood of success. The unions involved, which include the National Federation of Federal Employees and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. What People Are Saying Aman George, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, commenting on a different federal court ruling that declined to block DOGE's access to health and labor data, said in a news release on June 27: "While today's decision is disappointing, the court made clear it shares our deep concerns. We are committed to continuing this case and holding the administration accountable for exposing millions of Americans' private records to politically motivated operatives with no legal authority to access them." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, sharply criticized the Supreme Court's June decision, writing in dissent: "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." What Happens Next The appeals court's decision does not end the litigation. The case returns to the district court for further proceedings on the plaintiffs' underlying claims. The outcome represents a significant legal victory for the administration's DOGE initiative, reinforcing earlier high-court signals that agency-embedded DOGE teams may access certain records to perform modernization work. Still, the broader legal battle over the scope of such access—and its compatibility with privacy protections—remains unresolved.
NBC News
44 minutes ago
- NBC News
U.S. appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld an Arkansas law barring doctors from providing gender-affirming care including puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to transgender minors. The 8-2 decision by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court ruling. It also follows the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling holding that Tennessee's similar ban did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status. Citing that ruling, the 8th Circuit's majority agreed with Arkansas' Republican attorney general that the law did not violate transgender minors' equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. The 8th Circuit also went further than the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, by deciding an unresolved legal issue of whether such bans violate parents' rights to provide appropriate medical care for their children. Lawyers for the plaintiffs — a group of minors, parents and health care professionals — argued the Arkansas law violated parents' due process rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. But U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, writing for the majority, cited a lack of historical support for the argument that parents have a right to obtain medical treatment for their children that a state legislature deems inappropriate. 'This court finds no such right in this Nation's history and tradition,' Benton wrote in an opinion joined by seven fellow appointees of Republican presidents. U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, dissented along with another judge, citing a 'startling lack of evidence connecting Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming care with its purported goal of protecting children.' 'This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,' said Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the plaintiffs. The decision overturns a ruling by a lower-court judge in 2023 who had declared the law unconstitutional after previously blocking it from taking effect in 2021. That year, Arkansas became the first U.S. state to ban gender-affirming care for minors. The Republican-led legislature passed the ban over the veto of then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, also a Republican. Since then, a slew of other Republican-led states have passed similar laws. Such policies are now in place in 25 states. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld Oklahoma's own ban, citing the Supreme Court's ruling.
