Shia or Sunni? Rethinking History of Pakistan’s Formation

Shia Sunni debate Pakistan

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, widely known as Quaid-e-Azam, was the central political leader of the movement that led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947. His leadership was rooted not in sectarian identity but in constitutional politics, legal advocacy, and the idea of safeguarding the rights of Muslims as a political community in British India. Whether Jinnah personally identified as Shia or Sunni has been debated by historians, but what is clear is that he consistently avoided sectarian divisions in his public political life.

The creation of Pakistan was the result of a long political struggle involving millions of people from diverse backgrounds—Sunni, Shia, and other Muslim sects—as well as different ethnic and regional groups. Organizations like the All-India Muslim League played a crucial role in mobilizing support, and the idea of a separate homeland evolved over decades through political negotiations, elections, and mass movements. To attribute this historic achievement solely to one sect overlooks the contributions of countless individuals and communities.

The reference to Imam Hussain (a.s.) reflects the powerful symbolism of sacrifice, justice, and standing against  (oppression), values that resonate across many Muslim traditions—not just within Shia Islam. The legacy of Imam Hussain has inspired generations to stand for truth and justice, and these universal values can be seen in many political and social movements, including those in South Asia during the independence era.

It is also important to note that Muhammad Ali Jinnah himself envisioned a state where religion would not divide citizens. In his famous speech on August 11, 1947, he emphasized that people were free to practice their religion and that the state should treat all citizens equally, regardless of their faith or sect. This vision suggests that he aimed to build a nation beyond sectarian lines.

Statements that elevate one sect over another in the context of Pakistan’s creation risk deepening divisions rather than promoting unity. Pakistan’s history is shared by all its people, and its foundation rests on collective struggle, not exclusivity. Both Sunni and Shia Muslims, along with other communities, played vital roles in shaping the country.
In conclusion, while personal beliefs and historical inspirations matter, the creation of Pakistan cannot be credited to any single sect. It was a collective achievement driven by political leadership, mass participation, and a shared vision for a better future.

Why the U.S. Opposes Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions Despite Its Own Arsenal

The U.S. vs Iran nuclear issue explained

The debate over the United States seeking sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program—while itself possessing thousands of nuclear weapons—highlights one of the most controversial issues in global politics: accusations of double standards versus concerns about nuclear proliferation.

The United States is one of the world’s largest nuclear powers, maintaining a vast arsenal developed during the Cold War. Yet, it has consistently pushed for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities, including economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and even military measures. Critics argue that this position appears hypocritical: how can a nuclear-armed state deny another country similar capabilities?

From the U.S. perspective, however, the issue is not simply about possession but about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Washington’s policy is rooted in the global non-proliferation regime, particularly the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to stop new countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The concern is that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it could trigger a regional arms race in the Middle East, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia or Turkey to follow suit. This could destabilize an already volatile region.

Supporters of U.S. policy also argue that Iran’s nuclear activities raise specific concerns. While Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes, many international observers believe it has pursued capabilities that could lead to weaponization, such as enriching uranium beyond civilian needs . The breakdown of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and the reimposition of sanctions in 2025 further intensified mistrust between the two sides .

Recent developments show how tense the situation remains. Intelligence assessments suggest Iran could potentially produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it chose to do so, despite military strikes and sanctions . At the same time, diplomatic efforts continue, with the U.S. pushing for stricter inspections and long-term limits on Iran’s nuclear program.
On the other hand, Iran and its supporters strongly criticize what they see as U.S. hypocrisy. Iranian officials have openly accused Washington of “double standards,” arguing that nuclear-armed states demand restrictions on others while modernizing their own arsenals . They also point out that countries like Israel—widely believed to possess nuclear weapons—face far less international pressure.

This tension reflects a broader global divide. Some nations view the U.S. approach as necessary for maintaining international security, while others see it as an example of unequal power dynamics in global governance. The reality likely lies somewhere in between: the U.S. is both a guardian of the non-proliferation system and a beneficiary of it.

In conclusion, the U.S. push for sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program is driven by fears of proliferation and regional instability, but it is also shadowed by accusations of inconsistency and geopolitical bias. This contradiction continues to fuel debate, making the Iran nuclear issue not just a technical matter of weapons, but a deeper question about fairness, power, and global order.

nuclear non-proliferation,

US foreign policy Iran,

Iran nuclear deal,

global nuclear politics,

Middle East nuclear tensions,

nuclear double standards,

US nuclear arsenal,

Iran uranium enrichment,

Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, Mirpur: A Land Beyond Ownership

One land many people

 Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, Mirpur — this is the right of all nations, not the domain of any one” reflects a deeply rooted sentiment about shared identity, history, and belonging in a region shaped by complexity. Spread across the wider region of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Mirpur, this land has long been home to diverse communities, cultures, and traditions that cannot be reduced to a single narrative.

Since the events surrounding the Partition of India, the region has existed at the crossroads of political claims, national interests, and local aspirations. Yet beyond these larger forces lies the lived reality of millions of people whose identities are rooted in language, culture, memory, and land. For them, this region is not merely a geopolitical issue but a shared homeland shaped by centuries of coexistence.

The idea that this land belongs to “all nations” is less about formal ownership and more about recognition—recognition of plurality, of overlapping histories, and of the voices that have often been overshadowed by conflict-driven narratives. It suggests that no single power, ideology, or authority can fully define or claim the essence of such a diverse region. Instead, it calls for acknowledging the collective stake of its people, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or political alignment.

At the same time, this perspective highlights the tension between political boundaries and human realities. Borders may divide territories, but they cannot easily divide shared heritage, familial ties, and cultural connections that have existed for generations. In many ways, the region continues to reflect both unity and division—unity in its cultural richness, and division in its political status.

For communities across these regions, including Muslims, Buddhists, Siks, Dogras, and Kashmiri Pandits, the idea of belonging carries emotional weight. It speaks to displacement, memory, identity, and the hope of coexistence. While experiences differ across communities, there remains a common thread: the desire for dignity, recognition, and a sense of security in one’s own homeland.

Importantly, such a statement also invites reflection on the future. It encourages moving beyond rigid narratives of exclusivity toward a more inclusive understanding of the region—one that prioritizes people over politics. This does not ignore the realities of governance or sovereignty, but rather emphasizes that lasting peace must include the perspectives and rights of those who live there.

Ultimately, the message underscores a simple yet profound idea: that land, especially one as historically layered as this, cannot be meaningfully defined by singular claims alone. Its true identity lies in its people—their stories, struggles, and shared existence. Recognizing this may not resolve all conflicts, but it opens space for dialogue, empathy, and a more balanced understanding of a region often seen only through the lens of division.

Kashmir peace,

Kashmir voices,

Kashmir history,

One land many people,

Kashmir issue,

Kashmir narrative,

Welcome There, Suspected Here: A Kashmiri’s Reality

Why Kashmiris Face Different Treatment in India and Pakistan

The experience of Kashmiris across borders is often shaped less by who they are and more by where they are seen from. When a Kashmiri crosses into Pakistan, narratives may frame them as symbols of resistance or victims of oppression, fitting into a larger political storyline. Yet, upon returning to Kashmir, the same individual may face suspicion, interrogation, or even arrest, viewed through the lens of security concerns. This sharp shift in perception highlights how identity in conflict regions becomes fluid and externally defined.

A similar contradiction is felt by Kashmiri Pandits. When Pandits migrate to India, they are often received with sympathy and support as displaced people who suffered during periods of unrest. Their struggle is acknowledged, and their identity is tied to loss and resilience. However, for those who attempt to return to their homeland, the environment can be complex and, at times, unwelcoming. They may face social mistrust, political labeling, or be viewed as aligned with external interests, which creates emotional and psychological barriers to reintegration.

These contrasting experiences reflect a deeper issue: the politicization of human identity. In regions affected by prolonged conflict, individuals are rarely seen in isolation from the narratives surrounding them. Labels such as “freedom fighter,” “informant,” or “victim” are often imposed depending on the side of the border or the prevailing political climate. This strips people of their personal stories and reduces them to symbols within a larger geopolitical struggle.

The result is a cycle of alienation. Kashmiris, whether Muslim or Pandit, may feel that they do not fully belong anywhere without being judged or categorized. Movement across borders—something that should be a personal choice or necessity—becomes a risk-laden act, where perception can change overnight. Trust deficits grow, and communities that once coexisted find themselves divided not just physically, but emotionally and socially.

At its core, this situation calls for a more humane perspective—one that separates individuals from rigid political narratives. People should not have to carry the burden of suspicion simply because of where they have been or where they choose to go. Recognizing the shared pain, displacement, and longing for dignity among all Kashmiris could be a step toward rebuilding trust.

Ultimately, lasting peace in Kashmir depends not only on political solutions but also on restoring empathy. Moving beyond labels and acknowledging the human stories behind them can help create space for understanding, reconciliation, and a more inclusive future.

Kashmir political situation explained,

Kashmir human rights perspective,

Life of Kashmiris across borders,

Kashmir migration and return,

Kashmir social and political challenges,

Kashmiri Pandits rehabilitation,

Truth about Kashmir conflict,

Kashmir ground reality 2026,

Kashmir society and identity,

Challenges in Kashmir today,

 

Sunni Kant Chib’s Political Legacy and the Role of Article 370

Sunni Kant Chib

Sunni Kant Chib was a seasoned political leader from the Jammu region whose career reflected a pragmatic and constitutional approach toward the complex issues of Jammu and Kashmir. As a senior member of the Indian National Congress, his political thinking was shaped by the party’s long-standing position on Article 370—a provision that defined the relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India for decades.

Although there are limited direct public records of Chib delivering detailed speeches specifically on Article 370, his stance can be reasonably understood within the broader Congress framework and the political environment in which he operated. For leaders like Chib, Article 370 was not merely a legal clause; it was a carefully negotiated constitutional arrangement that emerged after the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh. This agreement allowed Jammu and Kashmir to join India while retaining a degree of autonomy over its internal affairs.

Chib, like many Congress leaders of his time, likely viewed Article 370 as a bridge of trust between the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Union. The provision allowed the state to have its own constitution, control over land laws, and internal governance, while India managed defence, foreign affairs, and communications. This balance was seen as essential in maintaining political stability in a region marked by diversity and sensitivity.

From a Jammu perspective, Sunni Kant Chib’s politics were more focused on development, governance, and representation rather than constitutional agitation. Unlike some later political narratives from the Jammu region that strongly opposed Article 370, Chib belonged to an earlier generation that largely worked within the framework of the provision. For him and his contemporaries, the priority was to strengthen democratic institutions, improve infrastructure, and ensure that the voices of the Jammu region were heard within the larger state structure.

The Congress ideology, influenced by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, emphasized gradual integration rather than abrupt constitutional changes. This approach resonated with leaders like Chib, who believed that respecting regional identity while promoting national unity was key to long-term peace. Article 370, in this sense, was seen not as a barrier to integration but as a mechanism that facilitated it.

Over time, political discourse around Article 370 evolved, especially leading up to its abrogation in 2019. However, understanding the perspective of leaders like Sunni Kant Chib offers valuable insight into an earlier phase of Jammu and Kashmir’s political history—one where dialogue, constitutional safeguards, and incremental integration were central themes.

In conclusion, Sunni Kant Chib’s position on Article 370 can be understood as supportive of its role as a constitutional safeguard and a symbol of negotiated unity. His legacy reflects a moderate and institution-focused approach, prioritizing stability and development over confrontation.

More info : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxg_rJDAI8

Article370,
Sunni Kant Chib,
JKPolitics,
Kashmir History,
Congress JK,
Autonomy Debate,
Jammu Region,
Indian Constitution,

Kota Rani to Mehbooba Mufti: A Story of Power, Resistance, and Politics

Mehbooba Mufti-Kota Rani

Ginkgo Gulzar 

From the legacy of Kota Rani to the contemporary leadership of Mehbooba Mufti, Kashmir has witnessed powerful women shaping its political and social identity across centuries. Though separated by time, circumstance, and political systems, both figures represent resilience, leadership, and a deep connection to the land of Kashmir.

Kota Rani, often remembered as the last sovereign ruler of Kashmir before the advent of foreign domination in the 14th century, stands as a symbol of courage and resistance. She was not merely a queen but also an astute administrator and a protector of her people during one of the most turbulent periods in Kashmir’s history. Faced with internal strife and external invasions, she chose dignity over submission. Her tragic end, often associated with sacrifice rather than surrender, turned her into a timeless icon of Kashmiri pride and defiance.

Centuries later, Mehbooba Mufti emerged in a democratic framework, navigating the complexities of modern politics in Jammu and Kashmir. As the first woman Chief Minister of the region, she carried forward a different kind of struggle—one rooted in governance, public welfare, and the pursuit of peace amid conflict. Her leadership reflects the challenges of contemporary Kashmir, where political instability, security concerns, and aspirations of the people intersect in complicated ways.

The comparison between Kota Rani and Mehbooba Mufti is not about equating their circumstances but understanding the continuity of women’s leadership in Kashmir. Kota Rani ruled in an era of monarchies, where power was absolute but threats were immediate and often violent. Mehbooba Mufti, on the other hand, operates within a democratic system, where authority is shaped by elections, policies, and public opinion. Yet, both have faced criticism, resistance, and immense pressure while trying to represent the voice of their people.

What unites them is their symbolic role in Kashmiri identity. Kota Rani represents the spirit of resistance and the defense of sovereignty, while Mehbooba Mufti embodies political participation and the struggle for stability in a modern context. Both figures, in their own ways, highlight the strength of Kashmiri women in leadership roles, challenging societal norms and expectations.

Their stories also reflect the evolving nature of power in Kashmir—from royal courts and battles to assemblies and public discourse. While Kota Rani’s legacy is rooted in history and legend, Mehbooba Mufti’s journey continues to unfold in real time, subject to political shifts and public scrutiny.

In essence, the journey from Kota Rani to Mehbooba Mufti is a narrative of transformation—of Kashmir itself and of the role of women within it. It shows how leadership adapts to time while the core values of courage, responsibility, and connection to the land remain constant.

Female leadership Kashmir,
Kashmir politics women,
Kota Rani history,
Mehbooba Mufti biography,
Kashmir women power,
Kashmir leadership history,
Women empowerment Kashmir,
Kashmir rulers history,
Female CM Kashmir,
Kashmir political leaders,
History of Kashmir women,

Zain Mobile Gallery

Zain Mobile Gallery

Zain Mobile Gallery
(Electronics store in Pampore)

Trader - Retailer of Communication Equipment, Cordless Phones & Telephone

Zain Mobile Gallery is a trusted trader and retailer of communication equipment, specializing in mobile phones, cordless phones, and telephone accessories. Known for quality products and reliable service, the store caters to both individual and business needs in the Pampore area.

Hs mall, near Jk bank, Shaheed e Azeemat Rd, Pampore, Pulwama,Kashmir  J&K 192121 

Mobile No : 72987 97911

Mobile phone shop near JK Bank Pampore

India Tests Nationwide Cell Broadcast Alert System: What It Means for Disaster Safety

Broadcast emergency alert system

India recently tested a nationwide Cell Broadcast emergency alert system designed to improve disaster communication. On May 2, 2026, mobile users across the country received a loud test alert and pop-up message stating it was only a drill. The system, developed by the government with telecom support, can instantly send warnings to all phones in a specific area without needing internet or apps. It is intended for emergencies like earthquakes, floods, cyclones, and industrial accidents. This test helps ensure the system works effectively during real disasters, allowing authorities to warn people quickly and potentially save many lives through early alerts.

disaster alerts mobile India, public warning system India, SACHET system India, earthquake alert India

How Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh Produces Around 70% of India’s Apples

Apple industry in Kashmir

Jammu and Kashmir’s breathtaking landscapes are not just a visual delight—they are the backbone of one of India’s most valuable agricultural industries. The region produces around 65–70% of India’s apples, making it the undisputed leader in the country’s horticulture sector. This dominance is not accidental but the result of a unique combination of climate, geography, and farming tradition.

The cool temperate climate of Kashmir, with its cold winters and mild summers, provides ideal conditions for apple cultivation. Snowfall during winter ensures proper dormancy for apple trees, while moderate temperatures in spring and summer help in fruit development. Fertile soil and abundant water resources further enhance productivity. These natural advantages give Kashmir apples their distinctive taste, color, and texture, making them highly preferred in markets across India.

Top Herbal Tea Ingredients for Natural Health and Wellness

https://jkmpic.blogspot.com/2026/04/top-herbal-tea-ingredients-for-natural.html

Natural Herbal Tea

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apple farming is deeply rooted in the rural economy of the region. Districts like Shopian, Baramulla, and Pulwama are often referred to as the “apple bowl” of Kashmir. Thousands of families depend directly or indirectly on this sector for their livelihood. From orchard management to harvesting, grading, packaging, and transportation, the apple industry supports a vast network of workers and traders.

Economically, the impact is significant. The apple sector in Jammu & Kashmir is estimated to be worth ₹8,000–₹10,000 crore annually, depending on production and market prices. However, most of this revenue comes from domestic markets such as Delhi, Mumbai, and other major cities. Despite its scale, Kashmir’s presence in international apple markets remains limited, highlighting a major untapped opportunity.

Elderberry cultivation in Uttarakhand & Kashmir presents an exciting opportunity due to the region's favorable climate and soil conditions. 

Elderberry Kashmir

One of the biggest challenges facing the sector is post-harvest management. A considerable percentage of produce is lost due to inadequate storage and transportation facilities.

Although cold storage infrastructure has improved in recent years, it still falls short of the region’s needs. Additionally, dependence on middlemen often reduces the profit margins for farmers.

To overcome these challenges, modernization is key. High-density apple farming, better grading and packaging systems, and improved cold chain logistics can significantly boost both productivity and profitability. Branding Kashmir apples for global markets and obtaining international quality certifications can open new export avenues, especially in regions like the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

The future of Kashmir’s apple industry lies in innovation and value addition. Processing apples into juice, cider, and other products can increase income while reducing waste. Integrating horticulture with emerging sectors like medicinal plants can further diversify the rural economy.

In conclusion, Kashmir’s apple industry is not just an agricultural activity—it is an economic lifeline for the region. With the right investments and strategic planning, it has the potential to evolve from a domestic powerhouse into a global horticulture leader.

Remembering Shaheed Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Azad of Pampore—your sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Azad

Salute to Shaheed Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Azad of Pampore—his sacrifice is a beacon of courage and unwavering commitment. The nation stands indebted to his valor.

Tributes paid to Shaheed Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Azad of Pampore, who is reported to have been killed by Ikhwani terrorist Papa Kishtwari. His courage and sacrifice will always be remembered with deep respect and pride.

Shaheed Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Azad is remembered as a symbol of resilience, dignity, and unwavering commitment to his principles. His life reflects a story of courage in the face of adversity, and his martyrdom continues to hold deep emotional and historical significance for the people of Pampore and beyond.

Though years may pass, the memory of his sacrifice remains alive in the hearts of those who value justice, truth, and dedication. His legacy is not only one of loss but also of inspiration—encouraging future generations to stand firm in their beliefs and serve their communities with honesty and courage.

On this day, we bow our heads in respect and remembrance, honoring a life that gave everything for a cause greater than self. Shaheed Sheikh Ghulam Rasool Azad will always be remembered, his sacrifice etched forever in our collective memory.

From Barbed Wire to Green Borders: Pakistan–Iran’s 2 Million Tree Vision

 

Green Friendship

Amid shifting regional dynamics, Pakistan and Iran are exploring an unconventional yet symbolic idea: replacing barbed wire and concrete barriers with a “green border” by planting nearly two million trees along their shared frontier. Stretching over about 909 kilometers, the Pakistan–Iran border has long been associated with security concerns, smuggling, and periodic tensions, with both sides even considering walls and fencing to control movement. 

The proposed tree plantation initiative represents a significant shift in thinking—from militarized separation to ecological cooperation. Instead of steel and concrete, rows of trees could serve as a natural boundary, helping stabilize soil, prevent desertification, and improve the harsh environment of the Balochistan–Sistan region. The area, often affected by extreme weather and economic underdevelopment, could benefit from increased greenery, which may also support local livelihoods through forestry and related activities.

Beyond environmental benefits, the idea carries diplomatic weight. Pakistan and Iran have recently emphasized cooperation through border markets and joint economic projects aimed at uplifting local communities.  A shared plantation drive could further strengthen trust, turning a historically sensitive border into a zone of collaboration rather than conflict.

Pakistan Iran border trees,
Pakistan Iran green border initiative,
2 million trees border project,
Pakistan Iran environmental cooperation,
green border project Pakistan Iran,

However, challenges remain. Security concerns, cross-border militancy, and political tensions have previously led to border closures and strict controls.  Ensuring that such a green initiative does not compromise safety will require careful planning and sustained coordination.

If successfully implemented, planting two million trees instead of erecting barbed wire could stand as a powerful example of how environmental solutions can complement diplomacy—transforming borders from lines of division into symbols of shared responsibility and peace.

History’s Warning: Why Empires That Chase Domination Always Fall

War & peace

The current global landscape is shaped by rising tensions, competing ambitions, and a growing sense of uncertainty about the future. While the world is not in a state of open global war, many analysts believe it is experiencing a quieter but equally dangerous struggle for influence and control. Major powers are increasingly focused on strengthening their positions—economically, militarily, and politically—often at the cost of cooperation and trust. History has repeatedly shown that such pursuits of dominance rarely end in lasting success; instead, they tend to create instability and, eventually, decline.

The role of the United States in this evolving scenario remains central. As one of the world’s most powerful nations, its decisions carry global consequences. Critics argue that aggressive foreign policies, economic sanctions, and military interventions have contributed to global tensions rather than reducing them. Supporters, however, see these actions as necessary to maintain balance and protect national interests. This divide in perception highlights a deeper issue: the difficulty of defining leadership in a multipolar world where no single nation can act without affecting others.

Leadership under figures such as Donald Trump intensified debates about America’s global role. His tenure brought a shift toward nationalism and a more transactional approach to international relations. For some, this signaled a decline in America’s traditional image as a promoter of alliances and multilateral cooperation. For others, it represented a recalibration of priorities. Regardless of perspective, the impact on global perceptions of the U.S. has been significant, contributing to ongoing discussions about trust, reliability, and long-term strategy.

At the same time, Europe finds itself at a crossroads. Historically aligned with the United States through political, economic, and military partnerships, Europe now faces questions about strategic autonomy. Some policymakers argue that relying too heavily on a single ally could limit Europe’s ability to act independently in times of crisis. Strengthening internal unity, investing in self-reliance, and building broader global partnerships are increasingly seen as essential steps toward securing its future.

The broader concern is that escalating rivalries between major powers could lead to unintended consequences. Even without direct conflict, economic disruptions, proxy confrontations, and political polarization can have far-reaching effects. In an interconnected world, instability in one region quickly spreads to others, affecting global markets, security, and livelihoods. The idea that any nation could pursue absolute dominance without facing repercussions is increasingly unrealistic.

Ultimately, the lesson from history is clear: cooperation tends to produce more sustainable outcomes than confrontation. While competition among nations is inevitable, it must be balanced with dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual respect. The alternative—a world driven solely by power struggles—risks repeating the mistakes of the past. Avoiding large-scale conflict is not just a political objective but a global necessity, requiring responsibility and restraint from all major actors.

global tensions, world conflict, power struggle, geopolitics, war risk, global instability, diplomacy, superpower rivalry, international relations, peace crisis

Compare the Kashmiri diaspora in Karachi with Kashmiri populations in other cities

Kashmiri diaspora

The Kashmiri diaspora across Pakistan reflects a complex balance between identity, language, and adaptation to urban life. In Karachi, the largest concentration of Kashmiris lives within a vast, multicultural environment. Although more than 160,000 people reported Kashmiri as their mother tongue in the 2017 census, daily use of the language is declining. Urdu and English dominate communication, and Kashmiri identity is often preserved through family traditions, surnames, and social networks rather than active language use.

In contrast, cities closer to Kashmir, such as Rawalpindi, show stronger cultural retention. Due to geographical proximity to Kashmir and Azad Kashmir, many families maintain the Kashmiri language at home and continue traditional practices. Here, identity remains more visibly rooted in everyday life.

Meanwhile, in Lahore, the Kashmiri population is largely assimilated into Punjabi culture. While many residents trace their ancestry to Kashmir, the language is rarely spoken. Identity survives mainly through surnames and historical awareness rather than active cultural expression.

In regions like Muzaffarabad, Kashmiri identity is strong, but even there, linguistic shifts toward Pahari, Hindko, and Urdu are evident. This highlights a broader trend: while ethnic identity remains resilient, language preservation is increasingly fragile.

Overall, the Kashmiri diaspora shows that proximity to homeland often strengthens cultural continuity, while large urban centers encourage assimilation.

The Kashmiri diaspora within Pakistan, primarily consisting of refugees and migrants from Indian-administered Kashmir, is significant, with estimates suggesting over 500,000 individuals. While many reside in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), a substantial number, including over 155,000 in Punjab as of 2023, are settled throughout Pakistan.

• Refugee Population: A 1961 record showed 10,000 original refugees, which grew to 400,000 registered refugee voters by 1990.
• Settlement Areas: Aside from AJK, significant concentrations are found in Punjab and other parts of Pakistan.
• Language and Identity: According to the 2017 Pakistan Census, about 350,000 people identified Kashmiri as their first language.
• Broader Diaspora: The term "Kashmiri diaspora" often refers to those living outside Kashmir, including in the UK, but in the context of Pakistan, it refers to those who migrated from Jammu and Kashmir.
• Refugee Population: A 1961 record showed 10,000 original refugees, which grew to 400,000 registered refugee voters by 1990.
• Settlement Areas: Aside from AJK, significant concentrations are found in Punjab and other parts of Pakistan.
• Language and Identity: According to the 2017 Pakistan Census, about 350,000 people identified Kashmiri as their first language.
• Broader Diaspora: The term "Kashmiri diaspora" often refers to those living outside Kashmir, including in the UK, but in the context of Pakistan, it refers to those who migrated from Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmiri language speakers in Pakistan,

Kashmiri diaspora comparison,

“Public Opinion in India: Beyond Pakistan and Kashmir Narratives”

Kashmir, Islam & Pakistan

The idea of gaining public support in India by speaking against Pakistan, Islam, or Kashmir reflects a sentiment that is often driven by frustration, media narratives, and long-standing geopolitical tensions. However, such an approach is not only risky but also largely ineffective when it comes to building sustainable and meaningful public support.

India is an incredibly diverse country, made up of multiple religions, languages, cultures, and identities. Any attempt to generalize or criticize entire groups—whether based on nationality or religion—can quickly alienate large sections of the population. Instead of uniting people, it creates polarization, which weakens the very support one might be trying to build. Public opinion in India is complex and cannot be mobilized through negativity alone; it requires credibility, balance, and a sense of shared purpose.

The issue of Kashmir, for example, is deeply sensitive and layered with historical, political, and emotional dimensions. Reducing it to a tool for rhetoric or public mobilization oversimplifies the reality and risks undermining genuine dialogue. People are increasingly aware and informed, and they tend to respond better to nuanced perspectives rather than one-sided narratives.

Regarding the film industry, it is true that themes related to nationalism, cross-border tensions, and conflict with Pakistan have gained visibility in recent years. However, this does not mean that the industry “depends” on such topics. Indian cinema has always evolved with audience preferences—ranging from romance and social issues to biopics and global themes. Filmmakers often choose subjects that resonate emotionally or commercially at a given time. If the geopolitical climate changes, storytelling will naturally shift as well. Creativity is not confined to a single narrative.

If the goal is to build strong public support—whether for a social issue, a political stance, or even a local initiative—the more effective strategy is to focus on constructive engagement. This includes highlighting real problems, offering practical solutions, and connecting with people on issues that directly impact their lives, such as employment, education, environment, and development.

For instance, if you are advocating for land rights, herbal farming, or environmental protection, your message will resonate more if it emphasizes transparency, scientific evidence, and community benefit. People are more likely to support initiatives that promise positive change rather than those that are rooted in criticism or division.

In today’s interconnected world, credibility and trust are key. Messages that promote unity, development, and fairness tend to travel further and gain wider acceptance. On the other hand, narratives based on targeting or blame often face resistance and lose effectiveness over time.

In conclusion, while geopolitical tensions and media narratives may influence public discourse, lasting support in India is built through inclusive, solution-oriented, and fact-based communication. Shifting the focus from opposition to constructive action is not just a better strategy—it is also a more responsible and impactful one.

The Role of China and Pakistan in a Potential US–Iran Ceasefire

By: Sheikh Gulzar

The claim that only China and Pakistan can bring about a ceasefire between the United States and Iran is an oversimplification of a much more complex geopolitical reality.

It is true that China and Pakistan have actively called for de-escalation. China, in particular, has repeatedly urged dialogue and condemned military escalation, positioning itself as a diplomatic actor seeking stability in the Middle East. Pakistan has also supported ceasefire initiatives at international forums like the United Nations, often working alongside China and other countries to push for negotiations.

However, global diplomacy is rarely limited to just two countries. Historically, ceasefires involving the United States and Iran—or conflicts linked to them—have involved multiple actors, including the United Nations, European powers, regional states like Oman or Qatar, and sometimes even direct backchannel talks. In fact, a recent UN Security Council resolution called for an immediate ceasefire in the 2026 Iran conflict, showing that multilateral institutions still play a central role.

The idea that Iran “does not trust any other country” is also not entirely accurate. While Iran has strategic partnerships and varying levels of trust with different nations, it has historically engaged in negotiations with multiple parties, including the U.S. itself during nuclear talks, as well as European intermediaries.

In reality, China and Pakistan are important voices advocating peace, but they are not the only ones capable of influencing a ceasefire. Achieving lasting peace between the United States and Iran would require broad international cooperation, complex negotiations, and mutual willingness from the primary parties involved.

US Iran tensions 2026,

who can mediate US Iran conflict,

Iran trust China Pakistan relations,

global powers in Iran US crisis,

China Pakistan peace talks Iran US,

Middle East conflict diplomacy,

US Iran ceasefire negotiations,

China Pakistan geopolitical influence,

Iran foreign relations strategy,

US Iran war prevention efforts,

international mediation Iran conflict,

Ababeel and Shaheen III: Can Pakistan Really Build Missiles That Can Reach the US?

During a briefing to the US Senate, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has included Pakistan among the countries that could pose significant security threats to the US.

While presenting the 'Annual Threat Assessment' report before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, Tulsi Gabbard warned that Pakistan's rapidly developing missile capabilities could put the US mainland within its range in the future.

Tulsi Gabbard said that “Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are conducting significant research and development in advanced, conventional or new types of missile systems with nuclear and conventional payloads, which brings our country (the United States) within range.”

She further said that Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile technology could in the future develop into an intercontinental missile system, which could also reach the United States.

Tulsi Gabbard said that “the countries identified in the threat assessment report will likely try to understand the United States’ advanced missile defense plans so that they can determine the direction of their missile technology development and be able to assess Washington’s intentions regarding defense strategy and deterrence.”