|
Maleeha Lodhi // DAWN: May 12, 2025
IT was April 1994. Pakistan’s army chief Gen Waheed Kakar was on an official visit to Washington. Pakistan was under military and economic sanctions imposed by the US on the nuclear issue in 1990. As a result, a wide range of military equipment including 28 F16s that Pakistan had paid for was embargoed.
Against this backdrop, the nuclear issue dominated most of Gen Kakar’s meetings. In one meeting with top US military and State Department officials, which I also attended as Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, our American interlocuters offered to release all our equipment including the planes if Pakistan agreed to freeze its nuclear programme and allow a one-time inspection to verify a cap on enrichment. Gen Kakar listened patiently and then politely told his hosts: “Gentlemen, I come in friendship but we in the East do not measure our relationship in planes and tanks. You can keep our F16s and our money. Our national security is non-negotiable.”
I recall this meeting as one example of how resolutely and uncompromisingly Pakistan maintained its position on an issue vital to its security. Had it not done so and caved into international pressure it would not have acquired the nuclear capability which is and has been the guarantor of the country’s security. There has been no all-out war between Pakistan and India since both neighbours became nuclear powers, despite regular crises, skirmishes and military confrontations.
The latest crisis has again thrown this into sharp relief. True, India has acted on its doctrine of limited war under the nuclear threshold, to try to push the boundaries and enlarge space for this in every successive crisis. It has also become the first nuclear power to attack another nuclear state by missiles and air strikes. It has sought to create a ‘new normal’ by launching kinetic actions in mainland Pakistan whenever there is a terror attack in occupied Kashmir, for which it holds Pakistan responsible without evidence.
In the latest crisis, India used all the instruments of modern, hybrid warfare — ballistic missile strikes, drones, disinformation, psy-ops and weaponising water to undermine deterrence. But Pakistan’s conventional capabilities deterred India from provoking an even larger conflict. Pakistan’s counteractions (initially downing Indian fighter aircraft) imposed heavy costs on India for its aggression. Retaliating to the second round of unprovoked Indian attacks, including on its air bases, Pakistan launched a military operation involving air strikes, missiles and armed drones against Indian military bases and infrastructure in and much beyond Kashmir. A ceasefire followed soon after brokered by Washington and announced by President Donald Trump.
Pakistan’s military response was designed to re-establish deterrence while blunting the aims of limited war and thwarting India’s effort to seek space for conventional war under the nuclear overhang. India’s reckless actions escalated the crisis to a dangerous level and drove it into uncharted territory — almost to the edge of all-out war. But its military brinkmanship had to stop well short of Pakistan’s known nuclear red lines. Thus, were it not for the nuclear factor, a full-scale war could have broken out.
The story of Pakistan’s pursuit of a nuclear capability is worth recalling to remind ourselves of the formidable challenges that were faced — and overcome — to acquire it. Confronted with an implacable adversary Pakistan initially pursued a strategy of external balancing by forging military alliances with the West to counter India and its hegemonic ambitions.
But the lesson of the country’s defeat and dismemberment in 1971 was that it could only depend on itself for its security. India’s nuclear explosion in 1974 was a turning point. It convinced Pakistan of the imperative to acquire nuclear weapons. Western countries, however, sought to punish Pakistan for India’s explosion by adopting discriminatory policies and denying it technology.
Pakistan faced innumerable obstacles in its nuclear journey. It braved Western embargoes, sanctions and censure, US opposition and unrelenting international pressure to stay the course. It took the country 25 years of arduous effort to build a strategic capability and even longer to transform that into an operational deterrent with an effective delivery system. That objective could not have been achieved if successive civilian and military governments had not all pursued this regardless of costs but confident that a firm national consensus backed the effort.
The book Eating Grass by Feroz Khan, published some years ago, describes the fascinating interplay between geostrategic shifts, key political and scientific figures and evolution of strategic beliefs, which shaped Pakistan’s nuclear decisions. It is a riveting insider account of the country’s quest for a nuclear capability and the challenges it encountered. Its title is inspired by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s much-cited remark that if India built the bomb, “we will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own”.
Khan explains how Pakistan mastered the nuclear fuel cycle despite heavy odds. He credits this not to a few individuals but to the collective determination of hundreds of people in the civil-military establishment. However, what ultimately determined nuclear success was the cadre of scientists and engineers whose talent was tapped in the country’s early years and who were motivated by the resolve not to let India’s strategic advances go unanswered.
A book that focuses on a different aspect of Pakistan’s nuclear journey is The Security Imperative: Pakistan’s Nuclear Deterrence and Diplomacy by Zamir Akram, an outstanding diplomat. Nuclear diplomacy played a critical role in the country’s efforts to develop a strategic capability which Akram chronicles with illuminating insights. A key theme of his book is how Pakistan’s diplomacy navigated through the discriminatory landscape erected by the West, while advancing its nuclear and missile programmes.
As a diplomat I witnessed first-hand the international pressure mounted on the country. Pakistan was asked to unilaterally sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, agree to inspection of its nuclear facilities, sign up to negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty in the UN’s Conference on Disarmament and curb its missile development. Pakistan said no to all of the above to protect its security interests.
Because of such decisions and the exceptional efforts of those who built Pakistan’s strategic capability its security is assured against a full-fledged war by India. Similar commitment is needed to deal with internal challenges, especially to build a strong, self-reliant economy so that the country is not vulnerable to external pressure.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2025
==============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 12 May 2025
THOUGH there were initial reports of violations, the ceasefire between Pakistan and India, brokered by the US and other foreign actors on Saturday, has largely held.
This brings a welcome return to relative calm in the subcontinent after both states engaged in hostilities following India’s unprovoked aggression against Pakistan on May 7. The first priority should, of course, be to ensure that the truce holds, and is solidified, so that there is no further bloodshed and aggression. Meetings and calls between the military officials and diplomats of both states can help sustain the ceasefire, so that it develops into a longer-term truce.
But once calm is restored, the two states cannot afford to lose time in addressing the issue that is the biggest source of instability in South Asia: the unresolved Kashmir question. US President Donald Trump has again offered his good offices to see if a solution to the Kashmir dispute can be found. The Foreign Office has welcomed the American leader’s offer. It remains to be seen how receptive India is to US mediation. While they would be loath to accept foreign intervention in what they see as an ‘internal’ issue, refusing Washington’s offer may be difficult for New Delhi.
However, while Mr Trump’s offer is indeed welcome, if foreign prodding had been enough, the Kashmir dispute would not have continued to fester for close to eight decades now. It is only Pakistan and India that can take the big decisions on Kashmir. Pakistan has repeatedly expressed its desire to see a negotiated settlement to Kashmir. India, on the other hand, has displayed extreme rigidity.
The ill-conceived move to scupper Indian-occupied Kashmir’s limited autonomy in 2019 is the biggest example of the BJP government’s attempt to prevent a just solution to the dispute. It has, in fact, created new ‘facts’ on the ground. But while foreign powers cannot dictate peace, what they can surely do is to convince India that it is time to change its tune.
The blueprints exist for a fair and non-violent solution to Kashmir, such as the Musharraf-era formula. These, or any other acceptable proposal, should be pursued, either publicly or through the backchannel. Though shrill war lobbies on both sides, particularly in India, will object to peace parleys, the fact is that an out-of-the-box solution acceptable to Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris is the only hope for long-term peace in South Asia.
If India continues to employ brutality and violent tactics in held Kashmir, and pursues attempts to re-engineer the region’s demographic profile, public disaffection will continue. Statesmanship and vision are needed by all parties to the conflict to ensure that the path of confrontation is eschewed in favour of that of coexistence and peace.
Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2025
==============================================================================
[Theme: There should be coherence among international efforts to help climate vulnerable countries.]
Huma Yusuf // DAWN: May 12, 2025
WHILE Pakistan and India were caught in an ‘escalation dominance’ spiral last week, Islamabad received some good news. Despite Indian efforts to derail the IMF facility, the next drawdown was approved, along with an additional $1.4 billion disbursement to support climate resilience.
The additional financing under the IMF’s Resilience and Sustainability Facility aims to build resilience against natural disasters and growing climate vulnerabilities. The facility acknowledges Pakistan’s water scarcity, and prioritises investment in water efficiency, climate mitigation efforts and better coordinated responses to natural disasters such as floods and drought. Given Pakistan’s ranking as the fifth-most climate vulnerable country, the facility is timely. But it also highlights how an increasingly fragmented world behaves incoherently.
The climate resilience facility has been announced at a time when Pakistan is grappling with India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a development not immediately addressed by the ceasefire declared on Saturday. As Khurram Hussain recently outlined in these pages, the suspension is not a short-term, knee-jerk reaction to Pahalgam. Rather, it is part of a well-planned slow creep to renege on treaty commitments and control the Indus flows at the cost of Pakistan’s agricultural heartland and those sustained by it. And yet, the international response to the suspension has been tepid.
Consider the big picture: does it make sense for international institutions to prop up Pakistan’s climate resilience efforts while the countries that govern and fund these institutions are failing to promptly address threats to the IWT, a truly existential concern for our country?
Calls for increased coherence in international policymaking are by no means new. But even while institutions such as the IMF, MDBs and trade organisations better coordinate approaches, incoherence seems to be an increasing global feature. It will be exacerbated with the weakening of international institutions and the growing global resignation to blatant violations of international law and norms as exhibited by nations such as Israel and Russia, which act with relative impunity.
Take, for example, the right-wing spurring anti-immigration drives across the West. These are willing to toss out democratic regard for due process, humanitarian considerations and constitutionally enshrined rights in order to rid Western countries of immigrants. But anti-immigration policies are deployed with little consideration for push factors. In 2022, the UNHCR reported that around 84 per cent of refugees and asylum seekers to the West came from highly climate-vulnerable countries, up from 61pc in 2010. And yet, we find ourselves in a world where immigrants in the West are demonised at the same time that major industrial superpowers walk away from climate commitments, and the US slashes USAID, which was providing jobs, health support and economic and climate resilience for millions.
Incoherence becomes more dangerous at the national level, as that renders foreign policymaking and diplomacy impossible. In the light of recent tensions, let’s consider India’s example.
Writing for Chatham House, Dr Chietigj Bajpaee has argued that India’s foreign policy ambitions include positioning itself as a vishvamitra (friend to the world). He argues this positioning led to the inclusion for the first time in 2023 of the African Union to the G20 during India’s presidency “amid the country’s efforts to project itself as a voice for the Global South”. But what Global South partner will trust India as it weaponises water?
Pakistan is not the only one anxious about India’s approach to securing its own water supply. The Ganges Water Treaty which ensures Ba-
ngladesh receives a minimum river flow via India is due to expire in 2026, and Dhaka is concerned about how renegotiations will be broached. India also has several water treaties with Nepal, which have been poorly implemented. If the IWT, one of the greatest examples globally of water diplomacy, does not endure, all regional countries — including upstream China — will be forced to plan paths to water security that do not require relying on Indian cooperation. This scenario does not cohere with India’s aspirations to be a rising power and champion of the Global South.
In a zero-sum world where the rules-based order is collapsing, it may be more effective to reprioritise coherence, a gentler ask than cooperation, transparency, inclusion or accountability. Coherence may not result in the best outcomes if key stakeholders are disinclined to achieve those but it will at least offer a modicum of predictability. These past few tense days have highlighted the value of that, if nothing else.
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2025
===============================================================================
Gulmina Bilal Ahmad // DAWN: May 12, 2025
TODAY, when knowledge economies are fuelled by skills, the professionalisation of the technical vocational education and training sector is imperative. Historically the poorer child of education, TVET today is perhaps the guarantor of inclusive growth, employment and work readiness — at par with if not more important than university education.
However, the charitable mode of thinking about TVET has to end. It is more than an embroidery class for widows. Standardised curricula, accredited trainers, international certification, market alignment, industry-rooted training are the goals. We need to re-market, rebrand and rethink TVET from blue collar to high value — an upmarket black tie if you will.
How? A good beginning is the implementation of the Uniform National Registration Standard Operating Procedures 2024. These SOPs are the first step towards a standard framework for TVET institutes’ registration and operations. They are transforming tools that govern the registration, management and output of TVET institutions. The SOPs serve as a firm, important step towards the establishment of a nationwide standards framework for TVET registration, with operations ensuring transparency, consistency and quality.
By implementing the uniform registration procedures, regulatory bodies like the National Vocational and Technical Training Commission (NAVTTC) can effectively monitor institutions, maintain data integrity and align vocational trainings with labour market needs. This ensures that institutions operate under a consistent set of principles, reducing disparity in training quality and outcomes. Emphasis is placed on the accreditation of trainers and curricula — trainers should not only possess expertise in the subject but must also be certified on the basis of recognised benchmarks. If mainstream education has qualification standards like M.Ed. and B.Ed., then why not have similar standards for TVET faculty?
Today, traditional trades need to be blended with digital knowledge to keep pace. Collaborations with technology companies aim to introduce international certification courses in information and communication technologies to skill and up-skill. For instance, the NAVTTC’s recently launched Huawei programme aims to train 1,500 trainees across semi-urban and urban areas in Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, Faisalabad, Multan, Bahawalpur, Sahiwal, Depalpur, Pakpattan, Gujranwala, Sargo-dha, Sialkot, Mardan and Muzaffarabad. Out of 1,500 trainees, 480 will be trained in cloud tech essentials, 220 in cloud architecture and deployment and 800 trainees in artificial intelligence. Such programmes serve a dual purpose: skilled entry-level youth and enabling mid-career professionals to upskill and remain competitive.
Presently, skilling programmes are primarily aimed at the youth but we also have a responsibility towards the continued training and education for upskilling mid-level personnel across trades. While youth-focused skilling programmes address the challenges of first-time job seekers, upskilling initiatives target existing workers who must adapt to evolving technological and work environments. Today, continued learning is not optional but essential.
International certifications in conventional and industrial trades also serve as an important barometer. It is useless to run three- to six-month courses only to end up with a sea of people who have no practical skills exposure and are unable to compete. Thus, inter- national certifications with the requisite assessment and curricula might increase the domestic and global employability quotient.
Many graduates emerge with limited exposure to real world applications and find themselves ill equipped to meet their employers’ expectations. To address this gap, international certifications must be paired with practical assessments, updated curricula and industry placements. International certifications such as Pearson and City& Guilds ensure that a welder trained in Pakistan meets the same requirements as one trained in Germany, thereby unlocking and increasing chances of Pakistan’s global mobility with a potential positive impact on remittances.
The path to transforming TVET from a charitable endeavour to a high-value proposition involves rebranding the sector, standardising operations, integrating global benchmarks, leveraging technology and fostering meaningful public -private partnerships. As we transition from a labour-driven to a knowledge-driven economy, TVET stands at the crossroads of opportunity and impact.
The writer is the chairperson of National Vocation and Technical Training Commission.
chairperson@navttc.gov.pk
Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL: 12 May 2025
TIME is running out. According to the latest Human Development Report, published by the UNDP this past Tuesday, Pakistan ranks among the 26 states that scored the lowest on its Human Development Index. In terms of quality of life, it is ranked at a measly 168th out of 193 countries. It is the only country in South Asia, apart from Afghanistan, that is listed in the ‘low human development’ category. The rest of the 24 are in Sub-Saharan Africa. But there is a silver lining in this dark cloud. This year’s report, which focuses on the possibilities unlocked by AI for human development, notes that, if adopted strategically, technology can significantly enhance human potential. It has now been a year since the UNDP’s Pakistan arm published the National Human Development Report 2024, which had been subtitled ‘Doing Digital for Development’. Disappointingly, the agency has noted that Pakistan’s digital landscape remains largely unchanged since then, even though it is home to one of the world’s largest workforces of freelancers and promising AI talent. Pakistan’s problem is that it has struggled to address digital inequalities, which mirror existing socioeconomic divisions.
A large chunk of Pakistan’s population of some 250m is at risk of economic impoverishment if the state does not prioritise investments in digital development. Half of the country still does not have access to smartphones, computers and even basic internet services, according to UNDP. With the rise of AI, the ‘have nots’ — especially the 42pc of the workforce that is currently engaged in automatable jobs, as estimated by the agency — are at risk of being left further impoverished while the privileged few — those who not only have access to modern technologies but also to tools that can teach them how to utilise them — are catapulted forward. It is these inequalities that Pakistani policymakers must be constantly wary of and work to mitigate as AI gradually becomes more mainstream and starts threatening jobs held by low- or unskilled workers. As the UNDP points out, legislative measures, like the National AI Policy 2024 introduced by Pakistan, are just not enough: the state needs to proactively ensure universal access to digital tools, affordable infrastructure and public sector readiness to reap the benefits of the AI transformation. The opportunity is there: it is a matter of whether we take it or get left behind.
Published in Dawn, May 12th, 2025
=============================================================================
IMPORTANT NEWS ARTICLES
=====================================THE END===================================
|
