Kashmir is known as Land of syncretism. Often portrayed as Paradise on earth, though this popular imagination is relentlessly used to subvert the cause of political violence on Kashmiris . Paradoxically, this paradise is subjected to unimaginable securitisation .Kashmir represents an ideal case of thought crimes and bio politics. It is less admired & more envied today whether on the streets or in the deliberations of civil society, in media galleries or in policy circles. Dialogues and deliberations pertinent to Kashmir issue seem elusive. Is Kashmir a Frankenstein’s monster, so intimidating or a pseudo paradise where deaths and killings are legitimised? For the agency of a suppressed self to speak for itself needs both courage and space. The language of silence exhibits how structures of power are ruthlessly regulative. Both the language and the discourses on Kashmir are highly securitised, impervious to critical refutation. In the theatrics of securitisation in Kashmir, the current state of affairs warrants deep analyses. Applying three levels of analyses i.e., man, the state and war, aptly describes the current dynamics of Kashmir.
Citing security issues as a rationale for invoking clampdown is mundane to Kashmir. This rationale appeared more convincing to the ruling dispensation at the centre when it abrogated article 370 & 35A on August 5, 2019 and subsequently bifurcated the state into two Union territories—Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and Ladakh. Well this was celebrated across political spectrum, while some political parties expressed reservations over the modus operandi of its execution. The abrogation followed a communication blackout in Jammu and Kashmir earning for India the famously infamous title of the country with maximum number of blackouts in a year. Pakistan diplomatically manoeuvred Beijing to raise scrapping of autonomy at UNSC. However, amid this unabated clampdown and international condemnation, New Delhi has been largely unresponsive, failing to show any resolve to initiate any negotiation. Kashmir is sandwiched between India and Pakistan, two nuclear arch rival states. The ongoing escalated tensions have high probability of culminating into another war. The unresolved Kashmir issue provides enough payoff structure to both India and Pakistan to behave aggressively against each other. The recent move has escalated the hostility to a new peak between the two antagonist states. The brunt of excessive securitisation is deeply experienced on ground by common people in valley where threat to life is an imminent reality
People amid Conundrum
From its embryonic stage of formation to its absolute mandate in electoral politics in 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections, BJP has traversed a long way. Domesticating its core electoral manifesto of abrogating article 370 from it being a populist electoral rhetoric to its pragmatic dilution, BJP has fundamentally altered the political imagination and the matrices of statecraft. Strangulating democratic edifice & silencing public articulation. Hindutva is a becoming a buzz word while media’s traction of the situation feigns optical illusion for masses. Narender Modi’s era will be characterized by his blitzkrieg policies from demonetisation to fiddling with federal structure.
Spatial brutalism in Kashmir is not a new discourse. Since 5 August, 2019 unarmed 8 million Kashmiri’s were excommunicated & put under siege by a million soldiers. By abrogating article 370 & 35A, the only constitutional link between Jammu & Kashmir with the union of India, history was twisted conveniently to justify this blatant act. Children of conflict are traumatized; normalization of travesty of justice, legitimacy crises is rampant and deep here. Structural violence is germane to conflict-ridden Kashmir and the docility is manufactured by repression, serving as instrumental rationality for state apparatus. State perpetuates masculinisation of war and feminization of violence since sovereign commands the absolute authority. From women to children, everyone is affected by this enduring conflict. Post February 14, 2019, Pulwama attack, the way Kashmiris were treated in different parts of country was both shocking and reprehensible. They were manhandled by mobs, threatened and intimated, ambushed in school and college premises. In fact, many colleges issued circulars and orders not to admit Kashmiri’s in their colleges. This multiplied their distress & alienated them further.
Cutting the umbilical cord of article 370 has opened up Pandora’s Box for the safety and stability of South Asian region in general & Kashmir in particular. At this moment life in Kashmir has been thrown into complete mess with no signs of recovery. Sudden deployment of security forces has paralysed normal life. Communication has been cut off. Rights are repressed, freedom curtailed, censorships privileged & democratically elected leaders are right now sparing in jails, preventive detention is a means used, abused and justified in the name of national security. Spaces of deliberations have been squeezed and dissenting voices are muzzled. What has transpired since August 5, 2019 is both reprehensible and warrants deep analysis .In West-Phalian order, state has come to occupy centre-stage in international politics.
State producing Statelessness
In his lecture “Politics as a Vocation” (1918), the German sociologist Max Weber defines the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. State derives its legitimacy from people but when state abuses its authority and perpetrates violence against its own people then state loses moral credibility. Consent of the governed is quintessential in democracy. However, the current crisis is resultant of the Indian states apathy towards Jammu & Kashmir and its crude stance with Pakistan on this issue. India is reluctant to talk with Pakistan on Kashmir because of infiltration by the latter. India blamed Pakistan for spreading terror in the region by backing and funding the militants in Kashmir against Indian rule. On the other side, Pakistan conventionally argues that until India will not convene a meeting for meaningful dialogue on Kashmir issue with Pakistan, sub-conventional conflicts and funding to militants in Kashmir will continue. Pakistan wants UN resolution through plebiscite to settle the dispute; however, India is worried about the majority of Muslim population in the state that is why India has rejected the UN resolution on Kashmir by claiming that India and Pakistan in the historical Shimla agreement have affirmed to settle the Kashmir issue bilaterally. However, by scrapping the state autonomy on 05 August 2019, India had violated the Shimla agreement too.
The lack of space for dialogue is generated by the hard stance advocated by New Delhi and its coercive policies towards Kashmir. There has been a complete failure in the resumption of track-two diplomacy. Rather than applying the policies of engagement and resolving the Kashmir issue both states are busy in managing it. In the high and low politics, it is the common Kashmiris who are killed and silenced. The situation in valley can be gauged by the fact that public good like internet is blocked for the longest time in the history. Civil resistance movement has picked up in valley because of the flawed policies of New Delhi in valley. Instead of reaching out to them state has shown complete recklessness .Therefore, it won’t be wrong to argue that state has been chief architect in producing restlessness in valley. In the language of neo-classical realists, leaders and institutions have important role to play in shaping its domestic and foreign policy. Modi’s blitzkrieg policies in Kashmir since august 5, proves this hypothesis right. In fact, Policy of command and control from New Delhi has led to disillusionment of Kashmiris and accentuating alienation. So both the people of valley as well as Islamabad have been sidelined by New Delhi, escalating volatility has potential to transcend into a war.
War as Imminent Possibility
To quote Leon Trotsky, “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”. Deadlocks and stalemates are recurrent feature between New Delhi and Islamabad on Kashmir. Had it not been the case the enduring Kashmir issue would not have lurked between New Delhi and Islamabad for so long. Already Islamabad and New Delhi have fought four wars (in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1991) against each other. Therefore, unless and until both states show maturity and political willingness to resolve Kashmir issue, the possibility of another war looms large given the deteriorated relations between India and Pakistan. The high politics of conventional war beneath a nuclear umbrella by military and civilian leaders in both countries highlights the shifting dynamics. Imperfect people in imperfect organisations can lead to miscalculations. Both states did not trust each other’s nuclear doctrines. The first-use and no-first-use policy of nuclear weapons between New Delhi and Islamabad are blurry and that is precisely the reason why the theory of “rational” state action is seriously problematic in the context of these two states. Islamabad is aware of New Delhi’s missile defence system preparations and the BJP government’s scrapping of autonomy in Kashmir might provide incentives to the Pakistani military to feel that “war now is better than war later”. In the Peloponnesian war, the weak Sparta launched a preventive war to stop Athens from becoming too powerful. Similarly, Bismarck, who once called preventive war “committing suicide from fear of death,” said that “no government, if it regards war as inevitable even if it does not want it, would be so foolish as to leave to the enemy the choice of time and occasion and to wait for the moment which is most convenient for the enemy”.
Since 1947, Pakistan has behaved belligerently against India due to unresolved Kashmir dispute. Pakistani military disregarded crystal ball effect while conducting war. Nuclear deterrence failed and the Kargil War became a new piece of history between India and Pakistan in 1999. Also the situation is aggravated further with nuclear arms race between the two states. New Delhi’s emerging defence system leaves limited options for Islamabad to save its nuclear/deterrent force from a possible India’s preventive strike. The Balakot incident in February 2019 happened due to military biases from the Indian side that Pakistan might not trigger the nuclear button in response to India’s limited airstrikes on the Pakistani soil.
Pakistan will feel greater incentives to use increased missile alerts fearing that an Indian attack might destroy its forces. Expectedly, both states were ready to fire missiles against each other during the Balakot crisis. In fact, the Balakot incident was politically motivated; otherwise, a possible nuclear attack might have been witnessed. In such a dangerous situation, deterrence might fail because adversary’s decision-makers might doubt the credibility of deterrence.
To conclude, neither the history nor geography should be ignored .Blatantly
twisting the history and fiddling with the federal character will exacerbate
the already existing complexities in the region. Securitisation of Kashmir should
give way to de-securitisation, as conflict transformation mandates peace
building approach not hard-line militaristic postures. However, an enforced
silence must not be interpreted as normalcy & more importantly peace.
Procrastination should neither become a standard template nor a norm to guide
the policies of New Delhi and Islamabad towards Kashmir. Mobilisation of
domestic politics to intensify and fuel hatred for Kashmiris or Kashmir either for
electoral gains or national security needs to be eschewed. Otherwise, incidents
like Balakot will serve as precedent for many more such incidents to recur as
deterrence has failed under nuclear shadow.
 Robert Jervis, ‘Offense, Defense, and the Security Dilemma,’ in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, ed., International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, Thirteen Edition, (New York: Pearson, 2017), p. 105.
The G20, the Global South and India
The G20 summit in India turned out to be not ordinary event. The summit of representatives of the largest economies and military-political potentials showed global trends in the struggle for leadership and development. The G20 meeting demonstrated India’s diplomatic triumph, which proved a rather profound understanding of world processes and trends. The most important consequence of the summit was the adoption of a new global economic and infrastructure project to export goods from India through the Middle East to Europe. In addition, the countries of the Global South have shown that they are not ready to oppose Russia openly and do not want to politicize the Ukrainian crisis.
The Group of Twenty originated at the turn of the XXI. During the deep economic and financial crisis in Asia, the developed countries of the West sought to formalize a new coordination structure. The idea was to create a forum to exchange views and global coordination of financial and economic issues. Then, the finance ministers of the Group of Eight solicited an initiative to expand the range of countries to discuss financial policy issues, inviting such large and actively growing states as China and India.
By the beginning of the XXI, there was an objective viewpoint in Western capitals that it was impossible to solve world problems without involving India and China in the problems of global governance. The idea of globalization was becoming dominant among intellectuals and development leaders during this period. After the collapse of bipolarity and the disintegration of the USSR, the world lost unnecessary dividing lines, ideological enmity and confrontation between the two blocs. Globalization was becoming a natural and necessary aspect of development. The idea originated in the UK and the USA and has become prevalent in the capitals of developed countries. Thus, the Group of Twenty was created.
Nonetheless, after the founding conference in Berlin in December 1999, the G20 was almost forgotten. Before the new financial crisis in 2008, there were no summits: the main format was the annual meetings of finance ministers and heads of central banks. The fact that the situation in the global economy was critical is indicated by the fact that the G20 summits met not once a year but as emergency meetings. The first, named “anti—crisis”, was held in November 2008 in Washington, the next in April 2009 in London, and, in Pittsburgh in September of the same year.
The severity of the economic crisis has passed over time, and the G20 has upgraded to the political level. The Forum, which unites countries from different parts of the world, is much more representative and balanced than the G7 and allows world leaders to meet without organizing an official visit to discuss current affairs. The Group of Twenty, major advanced and emerging economies collectively represent about 80-90% of the world’s gross national product, 70-80% of world trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population. The Group includes 19 major national economies, as well as The European Union as a joint participant.
The G20 Summit in New Delhi on September 9-10 was an outstanding event in the life of this organization. Three aspects can be stressed out. First, the G20 has expanded at the expense of the African Union. Secondly, the summit reached an agreement on creating a transport corridor that will be completed by India and its partners and is considered by New Delhi and the West as an alternative to the Chinese One Belt, One Road project. If this transport project is successfully implemented, it can change the balance of power in the global economy and significantly strengthen India’s position in the international system. Thirdly, the topic concerning the Ukrainian-Russian conflict was essentially secondary for the first time since February 2022 at a representative interstate forum. The countries of the Global South refused to politicize this conflict and take sides.
All three developments have become possible thanks to the successful work of Indian diplomacy. Apparently, it is safe to talk about India as a growing and established contender for the status of a great power. The last day of the summit was marked by a visit of its participants to the Raj Ghat memorial, created at the cremation site of the national hero of India – Mahatma Gandhi.
From the perspective of world politics, the most important idea was the creation of a new transport corridor, which was supported by all the largest economies in the world. It was decided to develop an action plan within a few months and start implementation. Its goal is to launch a large–scale project for the construction of railways and ports intended to transport goods from India to the Middle East and Europe. The memorandum of understanding, based on which the project is being created, is signed by Joseph Biden, Narendra Modi, and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman al Saud.
China’s excessive and active growth worries the most developed countries of the world, especially the United States and Great Britain. Some concern is also present in a number of Asian capitals, including Japan, India, South Korea, and partly Vietnam. Growth generates China’s ambitions, and intentions to spread its power and influence have a particular impact on the actions of other major players. Having a complicated history of relations with China, several countries are looking for formats and systems of cooperation to deter possible aggressive attempts to expand their influence and growth. Many intellectuals are convinced that the confrontation between the United States and China will become the main and determining factor of the XXI. The idea of a new transport corridor, which has become a demonstration of the success of the diplomacy of India and its partners in the West, has a specific potential for diversifying transport supplies and hedging the risks of Chinese growth.
Therefore, the G-20 summit was a success for India and demonstrated a sufficiently deep understanding of world processes, stability, and professionalism of its diplomacy. New Delhi’s ideas and projects have been supported by many players, including the conflicting West and East. India has become a conductor and mentor of the interests of the Global South. The expansion of the G20 at the summit in India at the expense of the African Union has become a symbol of this. In addition, despite the high level of conflict in current international relations and pressure, India managed to protect the economic summit from excessive politicization and collective condemnation.
The G20 New Delhi declaration: Is “One future” possible?
The G20 New Delhi Declaration, themed “One earth, one family, one future,” stands as a remarkable diplomatic achievement for India, even in the face of intricate geopolitical dynamics challenging the notion of “one future.” It demonstrates how India’s diplomatic masterstrokes, whether the breakthrough on Ukraine or the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent G20 member, transformed the seemingly impossible into reality. Specifically, the joint statement on the war in Ukraine by the West and the Russia-China bloc was unimaginable. The absence of Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping raised questions and concerns, but India’s Foreign Minister Jaisnakar addressed it as “not unusual.” Against all odds, India’s diplomacy successfully built bridges between the divided powers. How did the G20 New Delhi Declaration work this magic?
The language used in the 37-page G20 New Delhi Declaration is a testament to the power of wordsmithing, persuading everyone involved. While Western nations were eager to address the conflict in Ukraine, India deftly navigated this sensitive terrain. The declaration tactfully states, “Today’s era must not be one of war” in reference to the Ukrainian conflict, avoiding explicit condemnation of Russia. Notably, Prime Minister Modi engaged in a telephone conversation with President Putin just before the summit, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to engage in discussions regarding the Ukrainian conflict without falling into the blame game. In contrast, the Bali Declaration from the previous year used more robust language, explicitly condemning the “aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine” and demanding a complete and unconditional withdrawal. Foreign Minister Jaisakar aptly remarked, “Bali was Bali, New Delhi is New Delhi,” signifying the evolving dynamics of diplomacy.
Prime Minister Modi specifically emphasized India’s desire to become the voice of the Global South. Another notable achievement was India’s successful push for the African Union’s inclusion as a permanent G20 member. This strategic move reflects India’s commitment to representing the Global South, considering the African Union’s growing significance, representing 55 states and a quarter of the world’s population by 2050.
The recommendations enshrined in the New Delhi Declaration hold the promise of fostering “One future” if diligently implemented. Initiatives such as the Green Development Pact, Climate and Sustainable Finance, Financial Institution Reforms, and Gender Equality are vital objectives that benefit both developed and developing nations. The declaration made significant strides toward addressing climate and sustainable finance concerns by advocating for a robust replenishment of the Green Climate Fund. It underscored the imperative of securing $5.8 to $5.9 trillion by 2030 to support developing countries in fulfilling their Nationally Determined Contributions.
Nevertheless, the question lingers: Can the G20 New Delhi Declaration genuinely usher in “One earth, one family, one future”? In the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the G20 witnessed a convergence of positions between Western nations and Russia-China, aligning with India’s aspirations. However, Western nations may face domestic scrutiny for their approach toward the war in Ukraine at the G20 meeting. While India may have achieved diplomatic success with the G20 Delhi Declaration, the core issue between Western nations and Russia remains the war in Ukraine. In my opinion, India has no interest in becoming a mediator between Russia and the Western nations to find a solution to the war in Ukraine. Without resolving this conflict, India will not be able to bridge the gap between Western nations and Russia in a true sense.
Even though PM Modi has been trying to become the voice of the Global South, China is far ahead of India in Africa. The truth is that “funds are power” in the Global South. If India and other Western nations fail to provide funds in the Global South, then India’s dream of becoming the voice of the Global South will remain unreal. In the BRICS meeting, President Xi Jinping emphasized industrialization in the Global South, which implies more infrastructure projects. Now it will depend on how far Western countries are willing to go in the context of the Global South.
The absence of China’s President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in New Delhi raised eyebrows. Recent developments, such as the joint commitment by President Xi and Prime Minister Modi to resolve border issues during the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg and China’s release of a controversial map laying claim to Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin just before the G20 summit, have added complexity to India’s diplomatic agenda. Post-G20, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, under the Ministry of State Security, accused India of ‘sabotaging’ the G20 for its own interests. This underscores China’s unease with India’s deepening ties with Western powers. The “No Limit Partnership” between China and Russia is a concern for India, prompting a closer alignment with the West. While the G20 confirmed the centrality of the US-India partnership to the US Indo-Pacific strategy, it is evident that New Delhi may have to face difficult national security issues with Beijing. As India approaches elections, Prime Minister Modi’s firm stance on China is expected to persist.
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and addressing climate change concerns are paramount priorities, as agreed upon by all member countries. The real challenge lies in translating these goals into tangible actions on the ground. As witnessed with the Paris Agreement on climate change and the challenges related to it, the G20’s aspirations must not remain mere objectives.
Clearly, Western nations aspire to strengthen their ties with India. At the same time, India plays an important role for the Global South and the Russia-China bloc. The diplomatic success of the G20 New Delhi Declaration has bolstered India’s position in this increasingly polarized geopolitical landscape. The key challenge for New Delhi will be to navigate its relations with China while bridging the divides in the world’s power dynamics.
Of Game of Priorities
Following India’s moon mission, the Chandryan-3 safely landed over the moon, triggering questions and debate among scientists, political pundits, and laymen of Pakistan, as Pakistan has never been on a moon mission. However, whenever one of the twin nations or even a younger nation makes any achievement or progress in any field whether economic, social, political, or diplomatic, it raises questions for the other country, such as Pakistan and India. Besides, the humongous discrepancy between the global north and the global south also poses questions about why one is progressive and the other is not. The success of developed, developing, and least developed countries is always pregnant with some distinct decisions, so is their fruit. Simply put, only the priorities of a nation can make it or destroy it. Developed and developing countries engineer different priorities that result in different outcomes.
Each country designs its priorities accordingly. It’s the reason Pakistan lags behind in the global race because the world’s developed or most developing countries prioritize the economic and social well-being of their people, whereas Pakistan’s top priority is her security, which consumes most of its budget, leaving other sectors on the verge of destruction, despite the fact that Pakistan is replete with a myriad of natural and human resources. Resultantly, Pakistan undergoes the same fate of backwardness even in the 21st century.
Despite consuming most of Pakistan’s budget, the security challenges remain alarming in some border areas of the country. However, the internal security challenges have been tackled almost successfully. The security agencies failed to terminate the insecurity in the country completely even after two decades of war with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). As per the research, armed group attacks in Pakistan increased by 79% during the first half of the current year. Basically, the terror-related incidents peaked in 2013. The average was 4 attacks per day, and as a result, nearly 2700 fatalities had taken place. Similarly, the terror-related incidents didn’t stop but ebbed over time. Pakistan’s priority, even regarding tackling terrorists or insurgents, is ineffective. Crushing militants is impractical since Afghanistan is an all-weather safe haven for them. Whenever the Pakistani military attacks them, the top brass of the TTP relocate to Afghanistan. So it is totally difficult to end terror-related attacks and insurgencies within Pakistan, if Islamabad does not find a constructive approach to deal with them. There are two ways to exterminate them. Firstly, there must be a truce under the umbrella of Pakistan’s constitution. Secondly, if the previous doesn’t work, Pakistan must get a clear stance from Kabul to curb their safe havens for TTP top brass and then take actions accordingly. Apart from this, it is equally difficult because the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban belong to the same ethnic group.
Previously, the ceasefire between the banned outfit and Pakistani officials could not bear reasonable fruit; instead, spared her time to amass weapons and organize order within the outfit, which in consequence, can be far more dangerous than it used to be. So, it is better to keep everything in mind before making any policy regarding this. Comparatively, no developed country places as much emphasis on security. If anyone pays attention to security, it comes with economic benefits, as demonstrated by the United States. The secure environment also provides economic opportunities. Also, only working on other sectors but security can bear no fruit because in an uncertain situation, no business can grow.
Apart from this, in every budget statement, economic development is prioritized, but the allocation of the budget and the practical approach differ. Key indicators of economic development are deemed Gross Domestic Production (GDP), a low poverty rate, low inflation, human development, etc. However, Pakistan’s performance in each is noncompetitive with even regional countries. Our birth partner, India, occupies the 5th largest economy in the world, whereas Pakistan occupies the 46th largest economy as of 2023. The poverty rate is 37% in FY 2023, as per the World Bank, which is higher than regional competitors; the inflation rate has crossed 30%; and human development is equal to none.
Where the global players’ key focus is economic growth, creating multiple job opportunities, balancing demand and supply, increasing purchasing parity, decreasing or even exterminating current account deficits, and terminating dependence on essential imported goods, Pakistan compellingly, through flawed policies, relies on imports even for essential consumable items, which creates a current account deficit. Mainly, Pakistan’s problem lies in the current account deficit. Low exports burden Pakistan’s current account, which accelerates the prices of consumable items and results in cost-push inflation. Besides, expensive imported raw materials and a higher interest rate increase the production cost of domestic products, which discourages local producers and further burdens Pakistan’s current account by importing those goods. On the contrary, developed or most developing countries encourage local production of essential items instead of relying on costly imports.
Also, the black economy of Pakistan adds to the problem because it is unaccountable and doesn’t come into the tax net, thus reducing revenue. The black economy includes a wide range of illegal activities such as corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, and underground and concealed economic activities from the eyes of the government. The black economy of Pakistan is estimated to be worth billions of dollars, and it’s increasing rapidly. As per surveys by many organizations, the black economy is going to be worth trillions of dollars. If these economic activities come under the tax net, strengthening Pakistan’s revenue and proper expenditure, Pakistan will be among its top global competitors.
Additionally, Pakistan’s salt mines and coal resources are the second- and third-largest globally. Pakistan ranks fifth in terms of the country’s greatest gold resources. Pakistan’s copper is one of its most abundant natural resources, and the country ranks seventh in the world in terms of its amount. Despite being rich in terms of natural resources, their improper use renders Pakistan a poor country. Negligence towards the proper utility of natural resources is one of the major contributors to existing economic woes. If natural resources are prioritized and contracts are provided to local companies instead of international ones, more than half of Pakistan’s problems will be resolved. As local companies will hire local engineers and workers that will provide employment, hence increasing purchasing power and impacting poverty.
Apart from this, the most prioritized issue among developed nations is the social well-being of their denizens. For this, their key focus remains on education, an effective health care system, life expectancy, nutrition, empowerment of vulnerable groups, quality of employment, quantity of free time, availability of clean water, cost of living, and gender parity.
But, the education system in Pakistan is in the worst condition. It is mainly based on theory, an outdated syllabus, incompetent teachers, and an unfriendly learning environment where students are not encouraged, leaving a few institutes. Our literacy rate stuck between 60% and 65%, not even crossing 70%. But when it comes to learning ability, the rate even decreases. However, global competitors have garnered even more than a 90% literacy rate. Not to mention others, even India and Bangladesh have surpassed Pakistan in adult literacy rates. Apart from that, Pakistan has established universities, but scarcely have they managed any slots even among the 500 best universities in the world. Consequently, Pakistan’s graduates remain unable to compete globally. In contrast, India’s MIT and IIT are fully competing in the global race. Since technology is the future, India has culminated at a higher level, but Pakistan is too far away. As they have occupied key positions as CEOs in top tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, IBM, and many more.
Besides, the health care system in Pakistan is also not up to par. As per the world population view, Pakistan is ranked even after India, Bangladesh, Iran, and Ecuador. This is a matter of concern for Pakistan. Since it’s one of the fundamental rights of denizens of a country, this sector too must be focused and invested in. However, the world’s countries invest hefty amounts of their resources in their health care and health research because a healthy individual contributes constructively to the well-being of society and brings about positive change.
Apart from this, Pakistan is also behind the eight ball in life expectancy, nutrition, empowerment of vulnerable groups, quality of employment, quantity of free time, availability of clean water, cost of living, and gender parity. Apart from being fundamental rights of the people of a country, these are the indicators that show the development of a country.
To encapsulate, the priorities of a nation play a crucial role in shaping its future. If any country prioritizes anything other than the basic rights, social well-being, and economic growth of the country, the kismet of that country remains in the doldrums. So, Pakistan too should reset its priorities and put into action their words so that Pakistan can be a global player and equally confer each basic right and facility on its citizens.
Eastern Europe3 days ago
The agreement was reached to stop the Azerbaijan’s Anti-TerrorOperation in Karabakh: quo vadis?
World News4 days ago
Biden’s Hanoi trip was overshadowed by revelations of Vietnam’s secret Russian arms deal
Finance4 days ago
World Trade Report 2023: “re-globalization” amid early signs of fragmentation
World News4 days ago
Sharp deterioration of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh
Arts & Culture4 days ago
UNESCO supports removal of Ugandan tombs from endangered list
World News4 days ago
Shoigu: Moscow and Tehran are reaching a new level of interaction
Africa3 days ago
A New Wave of Leaders in West Africa: A departure from instability to stability
Finance3 days ago
Transforming Africa’s Transport and Energy Sectors in landmark Zanzibar Declaration