Latest news with #CharlesUniversityPrague
Express Tribune
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
A republic sans public, and a media sans ethics
The writer is a PhD scholar of Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication at Charles University Prague. She can be reached at shaziaanwer@ Listen to article Being semiotician, I am euphemistic. I can, therefore, just say that Indian media while monetising the threat of large-scale human disaster entered into the domain of insanity during the recent Indo-Pak skirmishes; and now one can only find 'media without media ethics' in Indian broadcasting platforms. Furthermore, after the Pahalgam incident, India is dangerously following a policy of 'republic without public'. As if a scene from the medieval era, TV screens in India are showing demolition of houses of Indian Muslims, being justified under the tribal concept of 'collective punishment'. Sikhs are tagged anti-India. A regular army is being divided based on caste, clan and religion. Isn't India moving too fast on the path of implosion? Well, a country with 1.4 billion plus souls must not implode, or explode — after all many countries in the neighbourhood would be in for a spillover effect. Another dangerous outcome of this crisis is the collapse of Indian diplomacy. Only two countries stood with New Delhi — Israel and Afghanistan — and both have extreme religious and political histories. This new triangle can be disastrous for the human race. All three follow the puritan school of thought. Two countries on two borders, not believing in human dignity and respect for international laws, dividing humans into groups based on religion, caste and linguistic background, and collaborating would surely not be in Pakistan's favour. Just imagine BJP has labeled Indian Army Col Sufiya Qureshi as 'sister of terrorists', just because she announced India's demand for a ceasefire, even though she was speaking as Indian Army's spokesperson. Col Sufiya is has been part of the Indian Army since 1999, and her father and grandfather also served the Indian Army. Moreover, her husband, Col Tajuddin Bagewadi, is also in Indian military service. Detailing her family background is meant to emphasise that BJP can abuse anybody and risk their life if they are not a puritan Hindu. The same is in Israel, where 100 per cent Army belongs to one religion, and the same rule lies in Afghanistan, where 100 per cent militant forces belong to one school of thought. India is a republic, but today, without the public, and is ruled by only one ideology - the Brahmin Ideology. Now look at the Indian media where the majority of commentators were demanding a full-fledged attack on Pakistan to bring misery on millions of people. Can we call it sanity? Is it a video game where you can reset and restart the game once you destroy the enemy? Sitting in the TV studios, Indian commentators were yelling: "this is the time to attack Pakistan's nuclear weapons." India had been claiming since 1998 that Pakistan could not fight in the conventional domain and would opt for "nuclear". The situation, however, turned out to be otherwise. International observers praised the Pakistani media calling it "credible" and "mature" while criticising the performance of Indian media as "sad and shameful". Some experts claimed that the ignorant Indian media is not even aware of the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that could leave over a billion humans in ashes. Whatever was shown on Indian TV channels was the worst kind of jingoism resulting from an extreme form of religious nationalism that has been injected over the years and that is extremely dangerous for the neighbouring countries. Religious nationalism is a mix of religious and national identities where religious affiliation is intertwined with national identity. This fusion in India is a powerful force that is shaping popular religiosity, influencing policy and impacting inter- and intra-state violence. This fusion demands reshaping media narratives by injecting excessive glorification of own country (India), and leading to hostility towards others. This jingoism is surely isolating India in the international sphere because the Indian media has already targeted President Trump, Türkiye and Azerbaijan for their just position to stand with Pakistan. To remind our Indian friends, Arthashastra suggests that a ruler should be adaptable and choose the best course of action based on the situation instead of following their egoistic approach. Let India taste its rotten recipe of foreign affairs?
Express Tribune
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Shepherd of the Afghans — indispensable, yet ineffective
The writer is a PhD scholar of Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication at Charles University Prague. She can be reached at shaziaanwer@ Listen to article The US media recently reported that terrorists attacked the Jaffar Express with NATO grade weapons. BBC confirmed that half of around a million weapons left behind in Afghanistan are either being sold to global terrorists or smuggled out of Afghanistan by the Afghan Taliban. The report did not mention where a large number of weapons had been smuggled, but intelligence reports from Pakistan suggest they are already in Pakistan and being used by terrorists against the state of Pakistan. It's been since August 15, 2021 that I have been expressing apprehensions in these columns that the US-abandoned weapons would be used against Pakistan. From 2022 onwards, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the UN organisations dealing with Afghan affairs had been drawing attention to the fact that Afghan Taliban were hosting, funding and weaposnising global terrorists such as Al-Qaeda and TTP. But during the same time the US had been providing funds through different means to the Afghan Taliban and never reprimanded them on what they were doing to global peace. No doubt President Trump wants every piece of the weapon back to the US, but The Washington Post and BBC reports are quite right that it's impossible to collect the weapons and send them back to the US. The damage has already been done. There is only one silver lining which is the Islamabad's resolve to adopt damage control policies. Pakistan is taking a range of actions such as ensuring better border control, sending illegal Afghans back to their country, and accepting the reality that Pakistan cannot be the 'shepherd of the people'. It is hoped that the policies focusing on preventing further harm, stabilising the situation and minimising the extent of the damage would continue, and Pakistan would not fall the victim to "need-based" arrangements yet again. One positive step Pakistan has already taken is an open and honest communication of the state with stakeholders, including the public, politicians, academia and youth, to maintain trust and manage perceptions. Pakistan is not shy of sharing with stakeholders that Afghans living in Pakistan are a constant threat to Pakistan's peace and sovereignty. Now it is time to address the root causes of cross-border terrorism from the western side, and that is what the state is trying to figure out through a contingency plan aimed at minimising the impact of any future incidents. Over the last 50 years, Pakistan has been shepherding the people of Afghanistan, providing them security, food supply, housing, education, healthcare, jobs, trade and an economic lifeline. But while Pakistan - like the shepherd in Odyssey — is indispensable, it is also ineffective as regards controlling the Afghans and preventing them from ruining its tranquility, peace and economic growth. And one should not forget that Pakistan is just a shepherd, and not the owner of this big flock — if described in Greek poetic terms. Pakistan was assigned to 'look after' Afghans by the powers that were cheese-boarding Afghan Jihad to defeat the then Soviet Union. Neither the Afghans nor the Pakistanis decided the role that Islamabad played for more than four decades. Therefore, the 'Ansar-Muhajireen bond' turned out to be a hollow slogan once the Afghans gained power from the USSR. Since then, we have been at war — a Trojan war. There is no need to go into the details of what the Pakistani nation and society lost over the last 50 years for becoming the 'shepherd of the people'. The task Pakistan fulfilled is well explained in the following lines from Homer's Iliad: "He should not sleep all night long who is a man burdened with counsels and responsibility for the people and cares so numerous." For the last 30 years, the shepherd was here, but without people. Today's reality is that neither the shepherd nor the people are here. I believe this is the beginning of a new era of the Pak-Afghan relationship that would benefit Pakistan in the long run.
Express Tribune
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Kashmir, Elephant and Dragon
The writer is a PhD scholar of Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication at Charles University Prague. Email her at shaziaanwer@ Listen to article India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, speaking at the Raisina Dialogue held in New Delhi recently, rejected the existing world order and called for a new one. India's loud demand for a new international order should be reviewed through the evolving dynamics of Sino-Indian relations. On March 17, 2025, China welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement that India and China had achieved "normalcy" at the border and that "differences don't become disputes". Since 2016, India has used the Raisina Dialogue platform for narrative experimentation. Jaishankar's demand for a new world order at this forum indicates that India plans to balance relations between the US and China — while maximising benefits from this transitional stage and positioning itself for advantages from the existing world order as well as the emerging one. In rejecting the old order, New Delhi has also rejected the UNSC and its Kashmir resolution. Indian state-sponsored media suggests that the Indo-Sino relations have progressed, and they have gone from regional adversaries to regional partners. It is evident that India has accepted China's actions at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) over the past five years. The Indian media reflects this assumption with catchphrases like "No hard feelings" and "Beginning of a new era of Indo-Sino relations". New Delhi has adopted a workable strategy that represents this acceptance, stating that "Elephant and Dragon would overcome their disputes, and both are already working to redefine the contour of their relationship." While mending ties with China, India is swiftly eliminating notions of any remnant issues at the LAC while portraying the Line of Control (LoC) between Pakistan and India as a regional dispute and threat to peace. Jaishankar, at the Raisina Dialogue, stated that the Kashmir issue is "the longest standing illegal occupation" of the territory by another country [Pakistan]. The Indian external affairs minister is right about the Kashmir issue being long endured, but not about Pakistan's role in it. It is rather India that has occupied Kashmir. By placing the Kashmir issue at centre stage and employing ideological media to manufacture consent, India has strategically spun the narrative about Kashmir over time. Academics and practitioners of Philosophy of Communications have been alerting Pakistan regarding India's placement of Azad Kashmir in the middle of the issue, with India media practitioners, academics and narrative builders working collectively to reshape the story. Jaishankar, in the same speech, also criticised the United Nations for what he called making the Kashmir "invasion" a "dispute". Ironically, being a professional diplomat, he is fully aware of India's visit to UNSC for the Kashmir resolution as well as the official status of Kashmir regarding it. How, then, could he make statements completely detached from historical reality? I believe this naivety is the core of the new Indian narrative which is bound to amplify so people remain uninformed about the Kashmir issue. However, there is a catch. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are all partners in China's belt and Road Initiative (BRI), whereas India has refused to join it — citing objection to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) "passing through a disputed region". This opposition itself reflects India's acknowledgement that Kashmir is a disputed territory. The BRI, encompassing 149 countries as of February 2025, is undermining India's regional hegemony. For example, Bangladesh is set to receive $26 billion for BRI projects and an additional $14 billion for joint ventures with China, amounting to a $40 billion economic package. Indian foreign affairs experts say that President Trump of the US no longer requires India as a special Indo-Pacific ally as his strategy now involves tariff weapons instead of physical partners. Some analysts believe that Modi was "turned away" during his recent US visit, with Trump concluding that India lacks the capability to counter China effectively, thus eliminating the need to take on India as an Indo-Pacific ally. Nonetheless, Modi's so-called diplomatic victory with Trump has significantly altered India's foreign policy, leaving Russia in an uncertain position. Recent global events have taught us one undeniable truth: narrative manipulation is practically incapable of changing hard geopolitical realities - such as the hypothetical strategic defeat of Russia and the ongoing Gaza genocide. Syndicated propaganda campaigns can buy time, but they have no capacity to change the larger facts. India by no means can sway away from the reality of its illegal occupation of Kashmir, as well as the brutal realities of mass murders, mass rapes and human rights violations in the occupied region. Moreover, India's aspirations for a rapprochement with China may ultimately face a major roadblock — its occupation of Kashmir. This issue could prove to be a deal-breaker, and no amount of fabrication and cosmetic treatment of reality could turn the tide in India's favour.
Express Tribune
11-03-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
US-Europe standoff: new geopolitical order challenging BRI
The writer is a PhD scholar of Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication at Charles University Prague. Email her at shaziaanwer@ Listen to article The world is not only witnessing rapid geopolitical developments but also surprising ones, leading to varied interpretations. This uncertainty makes it essential to parse public narratives before deciphering the hidden catalysts driving these shifts. An EU-US rift regarding "global settings" has re-emerged. The last notable phase of this divide was when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel attempted to persuade Trump 1.0 over the Ukraine war. While the EU currently pushes for continued war, the US advocates for a negotiated settlement centring a rare-earth minerals deal. Beneath the surface lies burden sharing. The transatlantic alliance seeks to divide global responsibilities - with the EU managing previous ventures and the US marching towards the Asia-Pacific. However, a key disagreement persists. Some European leaders, such as Estonia's Kaja Kallas, support neutralising Russia first and believe that handling Moscow effectively will help counter China. "If we will do Russia right, we will do China right," insists Kallas. However, the US wants to shift its posture towards China immediately, viewing its global rise as an imminent threat while offloading the Ukraine conflict in Brussels. The US is seemingly exploring ways to weaken Russia's alignment with China by reinforcing its dependency on Western systems like SWIFT, reinstating business ties and defrosting assets. Donald Trump has himself admitted, "The stupidity of what they've done, I'm going to have to un-unite them and I think I can do that too. I have to un-unite them." This approach has long existed within US foreign policy circles. When US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was a senator, he suggested a potential Russia partnership to isolate China geopolitically and economically. Both Biden and Trump administrations followed suit. Trump has explicitly linked this strategy to preserving the dollar's supremacy, stating, "If we lose the dollar as the standard, that's like losing a war." Consequently, he has threatened 100% tariffs on BRICS nations and others pursuing de-dollarisation in trade. This reveals that Trump's strategy is not about peace. His administration appears to be replicating Nixon's 1972 playbook which exploited the Sino-Soviet split to weaken the USSR. The "reverse Nixon" or "reverse Kissinger" approach references the secret 1971 trip that Henry Kissinger made to Beijing to facilitate US-China rapprochement and exacerbate the Soviet-China tensions. A similar strategy in Trump's first term was hindered by the Russia-gate hoax. This is why he has now assembled a team of neoconservatives and China hawks, like Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Mike Waltz as National Security Advisor and Pete Hegseth as Defence Secretary. However, this strategy will probably fail since unlike the Cold War-era Sino-Soviet tensions, Russia and China currently share deeper economic and strategic ties. While the Trump administration may try to reorient Russia westward, Moscow is unlikely to abandon its Beijing partnership, and the US may further unite these powers. An economic war within a hybrid-strategy framework might occur. The first target might be China's supply chain infrastructure like the BRI and associated development projects. Terrorist and proxy attacks are already hampering CPEC. Additionally, Western-backed NGOs possibly disrupting BRI projects under the guise of social and environmental concerns is a tested tactic. Governments in Africa and Europe will be constantly pressured to withdraw from BRI, and colour revolutions or coups in non-compliance cases cannot be ruled out. Ultimately, Washington's current geopolitical manoeuvring is less about global stability and more about maintaining supremacy in an increasingly multipolar world. The question remains: will the new multipolar global order evolve beyond America's traditional divide-and-conquer strategies?
