Latest news with #majority-Muslim
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Jinnah foresaw a grim future for Pakistan
The writer is a chemical engineer with interest in Society, Politics & Economy. Contact him at: Listen to article Pakistan, born from majority-Hindu apathy, now suffers majority-Muslim ethnic apathy, a tragic comedy. Durkheim (1858), founder of modern sociology, noted mechanical solidarity creates superficial unity but deeper apathy, explaining our socio-political chaos and economic decline. Recent conflict with India showed tactical wins using Chinese tech, but it didn't end hostilities, and more conflicts to follow with pauses. It is, however, troubling to see apathy in Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and parts of Sindh regarding military victory signifying anemic national cohesion. This demands a revisit to Jinnah's original goal for Pakistan: save some, not all, Muslims in India. He united willing Mohajirs and unwilling Bengal, Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan under his vision of a modern democratic state. Sadly, his Pakistan was quickly captured and system was subverted for some while masses and smaller provinces suffered. Mohajirs reduced to "second class citizens" and their political leadership twisted into clown for everyone's amusement. Ironic for descendants of those who fought British Raj (1857) and made Pakistan possible (1947). Still! Redemption lies restoring integrity and moral values not going after material gains, Jinnah's hallmark. Jinnah knew existential threat posed by PakRaj (British-loyalist feudal-military-bureaucratic trio) to unity among different groups and his founding principle — a country for people. Despite poor health, he acted fast: To fight feudalism, Jinnah chose non-feudal leaders in all provinces. Just months before his death, he disbanded landlord system in Sindh (blocked by court) and pushed land reforms in Punjab (sabotaged by legislature). Jinnah's land reforms died with him. West Pakistan stayed feudal, but East Pakistan implemented land reforms by 1950. Ayub and Bhutto's half-measures failed and no one dare talk about land reform in Pakistan since 1977. Jinnah kept military under civilian rule, fired General Messervy for ignoring him on Kashmir and placed military policy under cabinet control. His death allowed military to regain influence with feudals and bureaucrats — something Jinnah had forbidden. His bureaucratic reforms replaced feudal-backed recruits with merit-based ones. An exam under his watch in February 1948 had only 12% feudal recruits. After his death, English test barriers and vague interviews increased feudal share to 65% by 1965. Jinnah expected a grim future for Pakistan without reforms, and he was right. PakRaj initiated country's capture via malafide actions of Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza - both ex-ICS officers who carried contempt for politicians and democratic process. Using government-dismissal powers, they destroyed democracy between 1948 and 1958. Later, same provision serves a hanging sword over successive governments until last used by Musharraf in 2007. Mirza's tyranny led to martial law as he remained in power, but immediately replaced by Ayub's military dictatorship under judicial cover provided by Justice Munir — mother of all tragedies which State of Pakistan has yet to see, as its last judicial pillar fell. With that ended checks and balances system letting PakRaj do as it pleases. Institutional failures followed: Ayub's failed idea of basic democracies, Bangladesh's creation in 1971, and cycles of dictatorship and managed democracy — Bhutto, Zia, Benazir, Musharraf, Sharifs, Imran, PDM versions. Each rule made institutional decay worse. Why? PakRaj response has been always in "National Interest" (framed as required); over time they became all powerful entity beyond imagination, meanwhile joined by opportunistic politicians, industrialists, businesses tycoons and enablers. So, they control state and operate unaccountably. Period. It would be unfair not to see their performance accumulated over time, which can be evaluated under Scripture's guidance "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16). The harvest has been bitter. Governance has collapsed: Pakistan ranks poorly globally — all in worst tiers: Corruption 135, Rule of law 129, Political change 100, Governance 122, among others. Economy is equally damning: FY25 shows growth is just 2.68% (target 3.6%) creating more poverty, which is made worse by an increasing population growing at 2.7% annually. Public debt stands at Rs76.01 trillion (74.60% of GDP) with servicing at Rs9.775 trillion (51% of federal spending). Yet politicians approve their own pay rises while Cabinet expanded — a further arrogant act under misrule. Tax shortfall and mismanagement: Feudal escape taxes. SOE losses Rs851 billion, power sector losses Rs660 billion, elitist IPPs-related circular debt Rs2.5 trillion, UGF Rs190 billion, corruption costs 1.4% of GDP and an unknown amount of tax evasion. Pakistan borrows new money to service old debts — absolutely hostage to IMF and the US. Human cost is staggering: About 44.7% live below Rs2,324/day ($4.20/day) and 16.5% live in absolute poverty below Rs840/day ($3.0/day); actual figures will be higher given old database (2018-19). Even with military victory against India, Pakistan is losing war for human dignity which India is winning — only 23.89% of Indians live below $4.20/day, and just 5.3% live in absolute poverty below $3.0/day (CES 2022/23 data). Future? More of same suffering: development spending stays around 0.9% of GDP, health under 0.9%, education below 0.8% — warranting shameful "education emergency". Despite numerous national and international studies on countries' ailments and state commissions since 1949, PakRaj has set aside most recommendations and arrogantly ignored decades of real failures as country continues to decline. C'est la vie! Surely, PakRaj will not give up its power and privileges, nor can we expect them to; I along with them and masses await the coming reckoning, as John Elia said: Hashar main bataon ga tujhy Jo hashar tu nay kiya hay mera What lies before us is a simple binary decision. Do nothing — Accept PakRaj's fiascos disguised as "success" in governance, economy and battlefield wins at mercy of US/China. Or, Do what must be done — Finish Jinnah's structural reforms. Empower educated middle class, entrepreneurs and professionals. Adapt 21st-century realities — digital governance, global economic integration and climate challenges that didn't exist in 1947. History has proved Jinnah was right. He warned: without change we will remain exposed — fragile, divided and easily ruled. The reality always begs core question — whether Pakistan will heed it before it's too late.
Express Tribune
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
New law in Kazakhstan restricts public wearing of face veils
A women, wearing a niqab despite a nationwide ban on the Islamic face veil, gives a phone call outside the courts in Meaux, east of Paris, September 22, 2011. REUTERS/Charles Platiau/Files Listen to article Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev signed a law prohibiting individuals from wearing clothing in public places that covers their faces, joining a trend in several Central Asian countries to restrict forms of Islamic dress. The text of the law says clothing that "interferes with facial recognition" will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events. The legislation, one in a series of wider amendments signed into law on Monday, does not explicitly mention religion or types of religious dress. Tokayev has previously praised the legislation as an opportunity to celebrate ethnic identity in Kazakhstan, a majority-Muslim country and former Soviet republic. "Rather than wearing face-concealing black robes, it's much better to wear clothes in the national style," he was quoted by Kazakh media as saying earlier this year. Read: Kyrgyz body backs ban on niqab "Our national clothes vividly emphasise our ethnic identity, so we need to popularise them comprehensively." Other Central Asian countries have introduced similar laws in recent years. Police in Kyrgyzstan have conducted street patrols to enforce their ban on the Islamic niqab face veil, according to local media reports. In Uzbekistan, violating the niqab statute carries a fine of over $250. Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon signed a ban on wearing clothing in public that is "alien to national culture."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
01-07-2025
- Politics
- First Post
Kazakhstan bans face coverings in public, new law endorses 'national' clothing
The law says clothing that 'interferes with facial recognition' will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events read more Kazakhstan's Prime Minister Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has signed a law to ban people from wearing clothing that covers their faces in public, joining a list of central asian, Muslim-dominated countries to restrict forms of Islamic dress. The law says clothing that 'interferes with facial recognition' will be banned in public, with exemptions for medical purposes, in adverse weather conditions and at sporting and cultural events. However, the legislation does not mention any particular religion or religious dress that the ban has been imposed on. Earlier, Tokayev had hailed the law, saying that it would empower Kazakhstan's ethnic identity, a majority-Muslim country and former Soviet republic. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Rather than wearing face-concealing black robes, it's much better to wear clothes in the national style,' he was quoted by Kazakh media as saying earlier this year. 'Our national clothes vividly emphasise our ethnic identity, so we need to popularise them comprehensively,' added Tokayev. How have face coverings become contentious? Although the face ban has been seen as a progressive step by the government in Kazakhstan, a case in 2023 suggests that citizens of the country do not support such bans. That year, more than 150 schoolgirls in the Atyrau region refused to attend classes in protest against a hijab ban. Similar incidents were reported in other southern regions. Authorities stated that the situation was resolved following consultations with parents; however, uncertainty persisted over the extent of the restrictions, particularly whether they applied to the hijab. 'This principle must be strictly observed in all spheres, including education. School is, first and foremost, an educational institution where children come to gain knowledge. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are a choice and a private matter for each citizen,' Tokayev said at the time, highlighting Kazakhstan's secular identity. Which other countries have banned face coverings? Several Central Asian countries with Muslim-majority populations have enacted bans on face coverings in recent years, citing security concerns and efforts to preserve secular national identities. Apart from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan have all introduced restrictions targeting garments such as the niqab, burqa, and paranja, which obscure the face. These measures often apply to public spaces and government institutions, with officials arguing that such attire is foreign to local cultural traditions and could hinder public safety or facial recognition. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard
Trump administration challenges court order allowing international students at Harvard The Trump administration has escalated a high-profile legal battle with Harvard University by filing an appeal against a federal court order that blocked a presidential proclamation aimed at barring international students from attending the institution. The case has drawn global attention to the US education system, raising concerns about academic freedom, the treatment of foreign students, and the broader implications of immigration policy on higher education. The legal dispute centers on a White House proclamation issued on June 4, which accused Harvard of accepting donations from foreign adversaries, specifically referencing Chinese entities. The administration argued that these "entanglements with foreign countries" posed a national security risk, invoking a 70-year-old law designed to restrict the entry of foreign enemies to the US. This action triggered a lawsuit from Harvard, challenging the legitimacy and motivations behind the proclamation. Court order blocks policy, criticizes administration's rationale US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a strongly worded order blocking the enforcement of the Trump administration's proclamation, pending the resolution of the lawsuit. In her decision, she accused the administration of "misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views," as quoted by The New York Times. Judge Burroughs also criticized the administration's use of international students as leverage, stating it had acted "with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens." She dismissed the national security argument as 'absurd,' according to The New York Times. Harvard's international community at the center of the conflict Harvard enrolls approximately 7,000 international students and scholars each year, including around 2,000 recent graduates, accounting for nearly 25 percent of its student body. The Trump administration's policy threatened their ability to attend classes in person, raising fears of deportation or forced withdrawal. While the case proceeds through the courts, Harvard has begun developing contingency plans. Some students may be able to study remotely or from international partner institutions. The New York Times reported that the Kennedy School of Government is working with the University of Toronto to accommodate affected students. A growing debate over foreign influence and academic freedom The Trump administration's appeal has intensified an ongoing debate over foreign influence in US academic institutions. Citing previous legal precedent, including the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that upheld travel bans for several majority-Muslim countries, the administration is attempting to frame the Harvard case within the same national security context. As the legal process unfolds, the case is being watched closely both in the US and abroad. Critics argue that targeting international students may harm the reputation and global standing of American higher education institutions. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ali Velshi: Have Americans grown numb? Trump's new travel ban met with muted reaction
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 8 episode of 'Velshi.' On Monday, the Trump administration's travel ban on nationals from 12 countries — almost all in Africa and Asia — went into effect. Last week, Donald Trump announced full bans would be issued on Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. He also announced partial restrictions on nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The White House's official argument is that the countries on this list, as determined by the secretary of state, do not adequately provide information to the U.S. for screening and vetting visa applicants. In a prerecorded video address discussing the order, Trump cited the firebombing attack in Boulder, Colorado, at an event honoring hostages taken by Hamas in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack. An Egyptian national has been charged in the firebombing, but Egypt is not included on the list of countries under the new restrictions. Mark Hetfield, president of a refugee resettlement agency, told The Washington Post there was a commonality between the countries included in the order. 'They're travel bans from countries that obviously don't respect human rights and don't respect the rule of law and have foreign relations issues with the United States,' Hetfield said. 'But those are exactly the kinds of countries that produce the refugees and, in particular, produce refugees that the United States would have an interest in resettling.' You may recall that in Trump's first term, he restricted travel from a group of mostly majority-Muslim countries: Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. That 2017 ban typified Trump's first term. It was met with outrage and immediate protest, with activists, immigration lawyers and citizens alike camping out in airports to decry the order. It also typified Trump's first term in its sloppiness. The order was immediately rejected by a court, rewritten, rejected again, and rewritten a third time. When it reached the Supreme Court in 2018, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the president did have authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of people from countries that do not share adequate vetting information or could otherwise pose a national security risk. With this new ban, the Trump administration appears to have learned from that first-term experience and adapted its approach. The new order references the very same clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which reads: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.' Back in 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts said this language 'exudes deference to the President in every clause.' Perhaps Trump's first travel ban faded from public consciousness, but it was the law of the land until it was repealed by his successor, Joe Biden, in 2021. And the legal world's perception is that this latest ban is built to survive a legal battle as well. Trump's second term has been replete with lessons he learned from the first: He spent four years out of office, stewing on plans to wield the power he lost in 2020, and he came back into office armed with a 900-page playbook to bend the government to his whims and many executive orders already written, ready for him to sign. In the public's reaction to Trump's second ban, we see another difference: It wasn't met with the same outcry as his first. Although Americans are protesting the president's policies at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities across the country, no spontaneous protests against the travel bans have broken out in airports like last time (at least not so far). It's apparent even in the media: Trump made the announcement Wednesday night, and by Thursday afternoon, he and Musk were in their spat, which took up all the oxygen in the news cycle. As Adam Serwer argued in a recent piece for The Atlantic, this story is evidence that Americans have grown numb. 'The number of disastrous things the administration is doing makes prioritizing difficult for its opponents,' Serwer wrote. 'But there is also the reality that Trumpism is a kind of authoritarian autoimmune disease, one that has been ravaging the American body politic for so long that there are fewer small-d democratic antibodies left to fight it off.' This article was originally published on
