PM to seek Saudi help for Hajj 2025 crisis affecting 67,000 Pakistani pilgrims
Listen to article
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday said Saudi authorities would be approached to facilitate around 67,000 Pakistani pilgrims whose participation in Hajj 2025 is in jeopardy due to delays in finalising agreements and payments.
Chairing a high-level meeting on the issue on Friday, the prime minister expressed deep concern over the crisis and directed authorities to make every possible effort to ensure the pilgrims' journey to the holy sites.
He assured the delegation present that he would personally raise the matter with Saudi officials to secure approval for the affected pilgrims under the private quota.
'This is a matter of shame for us,' he said, calling for swift and decisive action. 'We must do everything in our power to resolve this issue and avoid denying thousands of people the chance to fulfil a sacred obligation,' he added.
The meeting was attended by Federal Minister for Religious Affairs Sardar Muhammad Yousaf, members of the Senate Standing Committee on Religious Affairs, and representatives from the Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan (HOAP).
The delegation briefed the prime minister on the crisis and appealed for his intervention to secure the necessary approvals for the pilgrims.
Earlier, Secretary of Religious Affairs Dr Attaur Rehman told the Senate that the fate of the 67,000 pilgrims was no longer in the government's hands, citing new policy changes introduced by Saudi Arabia.
According to the secretary, Riyadh has now mandated that only Hajj group organisers with quotas of 2,000 or more will be allowed to operate. As a result, 904 existing organisers have been merged into 45 larger Hajj companies.
The policy shift has complicated preparations and caused delays in payments and administrative coordination, leaving thousands of pilgrims at risk of being unable to perform Hajj in 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Green economy: beneficiaries and losers
Listen to article Innovation and sustainable development now have more opportunities thanks to the transition to a green economy. New types of jobs are being created as nations take steps to lower carbon emissions, make investments in renewable energy and build infrastructure that is climate resilient. The future of work is thought to depend on these so-called green jobs. But a crucial question is brought up by this shift: who will benefit and who might be left behind? Especially, how does this change affect workforce gender equality? Women still make up only about 16% of the workforce worldwide in the energy sector. The percentage is marginally higher in renewable energy, where women comprise roughly 32% of the workforce. However, most of these jobs are in lower-level or administrative roles. Since they are underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education, women are rarely seen in technical or leadership positions. Women lose out on the high-paying, technical jobs that are expanding at the fastest rate in the green economy if they are unable to access these fields. The situation is even more challenging in Pakistan. Women only make up 4% of technical positions in the energy industry, and many female engineering graduates are either unemployed or not actively employed. Even if women do work in the energy or environmental sectors, their opportunities for advancement into leadership positions are typically limited to non-technical roles like support or communication. Women's ability to fully benefit from the green economy is limited by their lack of representation and opportunity. When it comes to launching or expanding green businesses, Pakistani women entrepreneurs also face significant obstacles. Despite introducing Green Banking Guidelines and providing some incentives for green finance, the SBP's policies do not always consider the particular difficulties faced by women. For instance, many women are excluded from business networks, do not have access to collateral or experience discrimination in financial institutions based on their gender. Women-owned green businesses will find it difficult to compete or expand without greater support. The carbon credit market, where nations or businesses can purchase and sell credits based on how much carbon they emit or reduce, is a new area of economic activity. New regulations to permit trading in this market were recently announced by Pakistan. This presents a risk even though it might generate revenue and encourage low-carbon development. The advantages may once more go primarily to men and those in positions of power if women and other marginalised groups are not actively included in this market. Women must be represented in these markets at all levels, from project design and ownership to policymaking, in order for them to be equitable. Gender equality must be taken into consideration when developing policies to ensure that the green economy benefits everyone. First and foremost, more needs to be done to inspire women and girls to pursue STEM fields. Green technology training, mentorship programmes and scholarships can all help women get ready for the workforce of the future. For women who wish to work in green industries but might not have received formal training in the field, governments and businesses must also create specialised training programmes. Another crucial area is financial accessibility. Financial institutions must create products that are specifically designed to meet the needs of women, such as low-interest financing, collateral-free loans and money management education. In order to support the success of their businesses, women also require improved access to networks, markets and information. Making sure women have a say in decision-making is another crucial step. Women have to be represented in government climate policy, neighborhood green initiatives and global sustainability debates. Data is also crucial. Gender-disaggregated data should be gathered and used by organisations and governments to track progress and inform policy. In summary, the shift to a green economy presents an opportunity to combat climate change while simultaneously fostering more equitable and inclusive communities.
Express Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
India, ISKP and BLA: Pakistan's multi-front security challenge
The writer is a public policy analyst based in Lahore. She can be reached at durdananajam1@ Listen to article In recent years, Pakistan has grappled with an evolving security landscape marked by a resurgence of terrorism and foreign interference. From the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) to the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), and with India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) allegedly backing these elements, the threats are no longer isolated. They form part of a broader, transnational effort to undermine Pakistan's internal cohesion, divert its strategic focus and erode its sovereignty. At the heart of these challenges lies a sophisticated matrix of proxy warfare, disinformation campaigns and ideological subversion, designed to weaken Pakistan's state apparatus and inflame ethnic and sectarian divisions. Pakistan's commitment to countering terrorism has been evident in recent counter-intelligence successes. The arrest of an ISKP recruiter in coordination with Turkey's National Intelligence Organization (MIT) signals a proactive approach to dismantling terror networks. However, gains like these are frequently offset by persistent external interference. RAW's support to insurgent groups such as the BLA and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) reportedly extends beyond financial and logistical assistance. It includes strategic disinformation campaigns aimed at fostering mistrust within Pakistani society and delegitimising state institutions. By exploiting regional grievances — particularly in Balochistan and former tribal areas — these actors seek to provoke unrest and delegitimise constitutional authority. Such asymmetric tactics are not unique, but the scale and precision of their execution suggest a long-term strategy to destabilise Pakistan from within. The manipulation of nationalist sentiments and radical religious narratives is central to this objective, positioning Pakistan as a battleground for ideological and geopolitical contests. While ideological differences exist between groups like ISKP and BLA, they converge on one objective: undermining the Pakistani state. Rivalries between such factions may occasionally result in infighting, but their collective impact remains deeply destabilising. These groups exploit porous borders, weak governance in remote regions and access to digital platforms to sustain their operations. The fragmentation of these networks does not reduce the threat; instead, it signals a dangerous adaptability. Their volatility, combined with the external backing they receive, fuels a cycle of violence with repercussions far beyond Pakistan's borders. The result is not only domestic insecurity but also a regional spillover — disrupted trade routes, refugee inflows and diminished prospects for regional cooperation. The persistence of such conditions limits Pakistan's ability to assert itself diplomatically and economically within South Asia. Pakistan faces an existential threat, not merely through armed incursions or terrorist attacks but through strategic hybrid warfare. The tools of this conflict are disinformation, cyber subversion and proxy militancy — each aimed at fragmenting Pakistan's national identity and weakening its institutions. This multi-pronged approach serves broader geopolitical aims: to contain Pakistan's strategic outreach, curtail its role in regional diplomacy and deter foreign investment. The cost is not only economic — it is societal, institutional and psychological. A state that must perpetually defend its legitimacy at home finds it difficult to project influence abroad. Addressing these complex challenges requires more than tactical responses. While intelligence coordination and counter-terrorism operations remain crucial, the broader strategy must be structural, long-term and rooted in resilience. First, Pakistan must continue to modernise its security and intelligence infrastructure. This includes enhanced cyber surveillance, predictive analytics and robust counter-disinformation architecture. Investment in these capabilities would strengthen the state's ability to detect, deter and disrupt both internal threats and foreign interference. Second, a sustained policy of regional engagement is essential. While strategic competition with India may persist, Pakistan must continue building alliances with regional actors — particularly those with shared concerns about terrorism and cyber threats. Intelligence sharing, joint operations and diplomatic convergence, such as seen with Turkey and China, offer a pathway to collective security. Third, internal consolidation is paramount. Socio-economic disparities, especially in regions like Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, continue to serve as recruitment grounds for extremist groups. Development, however, must be matched with political inclusion, institutional reform and restoration of state legitimacy through accountable governance. Lastly, the narrative domain must not be ceded. Pakistan must invest in strategic communication — amplifying voices of national unity, countering propaganda and promoting critical media literacy. Civil society, academic institutions and religious leaders all have roles to play in rebuilding a national consensus rooted in pluralism and constitutionalism. Pakistan's security dilemma is no longer confined to its borders. The instability it faces is both a consequence and a driver of wider regional volatility. If left unaddressed, the current trajectory could precipitate broader strategic disorder across South Asia. By consolidating internal strength, refining external partnerships and investing in long-term social resilience, Pakistan can reposition itself not merely as a state under siege but as a proactive agent of regional stability — one that places sovereignty at the centre, balances coercive capability with socio-political outreach and embeds national security within a framework of regional cooperation.
Express Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Military notes of Indo-Pak conflict — the rundown
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam During the last two weeks, in this series, we discussed the perceptual aspects of the recent Indo-Pak standoff, India's doctrinal collapse, the redefined deterrence and the 'Exterior' and 'Interior Maneuvers' by both sides, before and during the hostilities. We continue the debate… This was the first time that India under its supposed 'new normal' used 'cruise' missiles, both the BrahMos version (PJ-10 co-developed with Russia) as well as the European SCALP-EG targeting Pakistan proper. Pakistan also retaliated for the first time, employing its conventionally armed short-range Fatah-I and Fatah-II series of 'ballistic' missiles and other types. This was also the first time that RPVs (drones) were used with the intent of causing damage to the other side, in addition to reconnaissance and intelligence-collection roles. This was also the first time that strategic instability in South Asia was linked internationally to the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute and not terrorism per se. Let us quickly recapture the timelines from April 22 to May 22, 2025. In run up to the crisis, on April 22, five militants killed 26 civilian tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, including one Nepali national, leading to Indian finger pointing towards Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) groups. On April 23, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, closed Attari–Wagah border crossing, expelled Pakistan's military diplomats, reduced Pakistan's diplomatic staff and cancelled SAARC visas for Pakistani nationals. From April 23–30 border skirmishes took place. On April 24, Pakistan condemned the Pahalgam attack and termed India's response as 'unilateral'; and retaliated by cancelling Indian visas, evacuating Indian nationals, closing its airspace to Indian aircraft, halting all trade and warning India against diverting Indus water, calling it an act of war. On April 25, India initiated ceasefire violations across the LoC. National Security Committee (NSC) met in Pakistan on April 26. Iran stepped forward with an offer to mediate. And on April 30, India banned its airspace to Pakistan, and IAF intruded into Pakistani airspace. Escalation and military preparations took place during May 1–6. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, after some initial ambivalence, 'expected' to speak with both foreign ministers on May 1. On May 3, Pakistan successfully test-fired its short-range Abdali ballistic missile. India escalated by cutting off all mail and trade links with Pakistan, banning Pakistani vessels from its ports and warned Pakistani ships against entering the Indian waters. On May 4, India stopped downflow from Baglihar dam on River Chenab. On May 6, Pakistan shot down 29 Indian drones near the LoC and in Punjab. And Iran's FM visited Pakistan proposing mediation. In the military operations (May 7–10), India launched 'Operation Sindoor', on May 7, conducting missile strikes on nine sites in Pakistan (Bahawalpur, Muridke, Gulpur, Bhimber, Chak Amru, Bagh, Kotli, Sialkot and Muzaffarabad). On May 10, IAF attacked eight major Pakistani air bases, including Nur Khan base in Rawalpindi. Pakistan, early on May 10, retaliated with Operation 'Bunyan-un-Marsoos', launching missile and drone combo on 26 military targets across India, and in the Indian-occupied Kashmir. It also launched another wave of swarm drones, loitering munitions and Fatah missiles targeting 26 locations along India's western border. On the same day (May 10), the Saudi FM called for de-escalation, Secretary of State Rubio spoke with both PMs and NSAs, urging restraint. Pakistan's DGMO reached out to the Indian side for direct military-level communications. President Trump mediated the ceasefire and announced it on X. On May 11, Pakistan claimed victory against India. Both sides subsequently conducted propaganda offensive through aggressive diplomacy by sending delegations to global capitals. In between the above compressed timeline, a lot went through. The Indian attacks, as per information available through open sources, were 'supposedly calibrated' during May 8 and early on May 9, whereas the wider attacks during May 9-10, still 'presumably' calibrated, were dangerously escalatory, as these were aimed at Pakistan's SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences) systems, after IAF having lost aircraft on May 7. It was sometimes on the morning of May 9 (the US time and evening in India/Pakistan), that the US received unspecified, new but 'alarming intelligence' about dangerous escalation between both sides, as reported by CNN and corroborated by The New York Times. The US worries emerged before the dramatic escalation during the night of May 9-10, but no source has actually 'identified' those worries. The 'speculation' is that Washington observing Pakistan's launch of short-range Fatah-I and -II ballistic missiles and others for the first time during May 9-10 night got aggressively involved. Islamabad's stockpile of tactical nuclear arsenal and Indian thinking of continuing a conventional war of punitive retribution provided a background to it. Some analysts also attribute it to Pakistan's deft diplomacy, signalling to and drawing on the US interlocution, spurred by 'readiness changes in Pakistan's stockpiles', besides the announced meeting of Pakistan's National Command Authority, that oversees the non-conventional means of war i.e. the nuclear weapons. The DG ISPR had, on May 9, declined calls for de-escalation due to the planned riposte under Pakistan's 'quid-pro-quo plus' strategy, to equalise losses caused by the Indian attacks. India later struck Nur Khan airbase around 2:30 am on May 10. This attack was meant to 'strike where it would hurt', to quote the Indian Director-General Air Operations, Air Marshal Bharti. However, that was an escalatory message. The Indian attacks also targeted Rafiqui, Rahim Yar Khan and Sukkur bases during the first wave of strikes, followed by the IAF strikes at Sargodha, Bholari and Jacobabad airbases and some military infrastructure at Murid, Chunian, Arifwala and Pasrur. This was India 'knocking on the nuclear door', and it presumably provided more muscle and lethality to Pakistan's riposte, that was dubbed equally if alarmingly escalatory by Washington. In de-escalation, the predominant view is that the Saudis, the Americans, the Turks and the Qataris rushed to quell India 'not because Pakistan asked, but because Delhi could not stabilize the board…Pakistan had not flinched; it had not folded. It escalated, absorbed and redrew the board'. More on ceasefire exclusively later. Continues…
