Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) and Chief of the Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir warned on Sunday that any future “misadventure” against Pakistan will result in “extremely far-reaching and painful” consequences.

He made the remarks at a ceremony held at General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi to mark one year since Pakistan’s victory in last year’s conflict with India.

The conflict with India — starting from the April 22 Pahalgam attack to the end of Operation Bunyanum Marsoos with a ceasefire between the two countries on May 10 — has been called “Marka-i-Haq” (Battle of Truth) by the state.

CDF Munir, as the chief guest, addressed the event. Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Zaheer Ahmed Babar Sidhu and Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Naveed Ashraf were also in attendance.

Addressing the ceremony, Field Marshal Munir warned: “Our enemies should know that if any attempt is made in the future to carry out a misadventure against Pakistan, then the impact of war would not be limited, but extremely widespread, dangerous, far-reaching and painful.”

At the outset of his speech, the army chief said the day was a “source of pride” for Pakistan, its public and the armed forces.

He recalled that the “enemy made a failed attempt to test our resolve by violating the sovereignty and territory” of Pakistan from the midnight of May 6/7 till May 10. He asserted this was responded to “with full national unity and military force”.

“Marka-i-Haq was not merely a traditional war fought between two countries or militaries, but in reality, it was a decisive marka (battle) between two ideologies, in which, thanks to Allah, the truth won and falsehood was met with defeat,” he noted.

Quoting a Quranic verse on truth and falsehood, he stressed that the May 2025 conflict was “not a sudden incident, but rather a part of India’s false and widening pattern of exploitative tactics”.

“The false flag operations of 2001, 2008, 2016 and 2019 are a testament that even in the past, India has made failed attempts to impose an illegitimate war on Pakistan and […] achieve narrow-minded, long-term political and military objectives through allegations, exaggeration, warmongering and misleading imagination of limited aggression,” CDF Munir said.

“Each time, not only did Pakistan unveil the wrong estimates of the enemy, but also served it a decisive defeat. In this war as well, India once again was a victim of its obsolete and self-delusional thinking,” he asserted.

The army chief highlighted that the objective of Operation Bunyanum Marsoos was to “unravel the enemy’s behaviour under which, to divert attention from its internal failures, it creates war hysteria by blaming Pakistan for every self-inflicted incident”.

CDF Munir said India was under the false assumption that it could “change the balance of power and prove its dominance over the region by making Pakistan a target of its military aggression and diplomatically isolating it”.

“But in reality, global and defence experts know that India’s ambitions proved to be much larger than its stature and capabilities,” COAS Munir remarked, asserting that Pakistan’s armed forces were not intimidated by the dominance of power and will never do so.

He paid tribute to the martyrs of Marka-i-Haq who “paid the price of this victory with their blood”, including women, the elderly and children killed in Indian strikes.

“All martyrs of Marka-i-Haq and their bereaved families are our crown. Your sacrifices are the guarantor of our independence and everlasting debts,” the army chief said. “We consider our martyrs an amanat, our power a responsibility, and our success a favour of God,” he added.

The army chief proceeded to express his gratitude to the president, the prime minister, the federal cabinet, the national and provincial political leadership, and all political parties for their “everlasting political wisdom, foresight and leadership” that accorded Pakistan success.

“The national leadership, all government institutions and the Pakistani nation gave a message as a single unit that any compromise on the country’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national honour is unacceptable,” he declared.

CDF Munir stated that Pakistan also “achieved success on the diplomatic front” as its leaders and representatives conveyed Pakistan’s stance on the global stage.

“Similarly, there is no parallel found to the way the Pakistani media, the journalist community, and especially our youth, thwarted the enemy’s propaganda, cyberwarfare and psychological tactics,” he added.

The army chief highlighted that the conflict was not won on just the battlefield, but also “in every section of society” at the national level. Emphasising that a country’s true power lies with its nation’s unity of thought and action, and patriotism, he lauded the “comprehensive national unity” displayed by the public.

“When the clouds of war loomed, we saw that every ideological and individual identity was transformed into Pakistaniyat — labourers, traders, students, the elderly and the young, and all Pakistani men and women resolved to defend their homeland,” he recalled.

“We witnessed a relation between the nation, the government, and the armed forces by virtue of which the entire nation lined up in defence of the country like an iron wall,” the army chief said.

He then recited a Quranic verse from which the phrase “Bunyanum Marsoos” for Pakistan’s retaliatory operation was derived. The verse was also recited earlier during the ceremony.

“In this battle, not only did the armed forces defeat the aggressor enemy beyond its imagination, but the professional expertise and top military strategy of our ground, naval and air forces forced the enemy to meet defeat,” the military chief said.

The CDF commended the air force personnel for “reducing the enemy’s pride to dust and setting the unique example of the modern era’s longest and decisive air battle” under the leadership of the air chief.

“Not only did they down the enemy’s several modern fighter jets, but also destroyed numerous military installations,” he said.

The field marshal also lauded the naval forces for “keeping the enemy’s naval ships thousands of miles away from Pakistani territory through constant monitoring and vigilant defence of the maritime borders”. He further commended the forces on the Working Border and the Line of Control for thwarting India’s aggression and “causing immense loss by destroying its defence positions”.

He asserted that India “suffered great human and economic losses, the price of which it will keep paying in the times to come”.

The army chief recalled that Pakistan “successfully targeted more than 26 military targets” in India during the conflict, following which New Delhi “expressed the wish for a ceasefire” to international powers.

“Defeated India expressed the desire for mediation through the American leadership, which Pakistan accepted in the interest of wider regional peace,” Field Marshal Munir said.

He declared that Pakistan’s “defence was absolutely invincible in the face of any foreign aggression”. “We are strictly committed to maintaining the balance of power in the region and our effective defence deterrence,” he said, asserting that the focal point of the armed forces was the protection of peace rather than aggression.

“And to maintain peace, it is mandatory to be ready for war at all times,” CDF Munir noted.

He observed that traditional wars were a thing of the past, adding that modern and future wars would “comprise multi-domain operations, in which modern technology, including cyber and electronic warfare, drones, long-range vectors, and artificial intelligence would play a crucial role”.

The military chief noted that to “further harmonise Pakistan’s armed forces with multi-domain operations”, the Defence Forces Headquarters has been established, the space programme was being expanded, and the Army Rocket Force Command has been formed.

He cited the induction of Hangor-class submarines in the Pakistan Navy, the acquisition of the “most modern fighter jets” for the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), and the Fatah missile series as “a few examples of this series”.

Prior to the army chief’s address, ACM Sidhu and Admiral Ashraf took turns to lay floral wreaths at the Yadgar-i-Shuhada (Martyrs’ Monument).

A salute was presented by smartly turned-out contingents of the three armed forces, which was followed by the tune of the national anthem played out.

‘Defining landmark’

In their messages issued on Saturday, Field Marshal Munir, ACM Sidhu and Admiral Ashraf congratulated the nation and officers and personnel of the armed forces on the completion of one year since the success of Marka-i-Haq.

“Observed with deep reverence, gratitude, and national fervour, the day stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of courage, professionalism, and unity,” a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) quoted them as saying.

“Marka-i-Haq has become a defining landmark in the nation’s journey, reflecting national resolve, military excellence, and strategic maturity. This success not only bolstered national confidence but also established Pakistan as a responsible regional stabiliser, possessing formidable military capabilities,” it stated.

The statement added that Pakistan’s measured and resolute response during Marka-i-Haq “exposed adversarial conspiracies, false flag narratives and disinformation campaigns, diminishing their credibility internationally”.

“Despite facing conventional and hybrid challenges, including proxy terrorism, the armed forces demonstrated superior operational competence across land, air, sea, cyber, and information domains,” it continued.

It further read that in the aftermath of Marka-i-Haq, Pakistan had “further enhanced its defensive capabilities and reinforced full-spectrum deterrence despite resource asymmetries”.

More to follow

BANNU: At least 15 police personnel were martyred on Saturday night after a suicide attack on the Fateh Khel police post in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Bannu district.

The terrorists launched their attack on the post by ramming a vehicle laden with explosives.

According to Regional Police Officer Bannu Sajjad Khan, a total of 18 police personnel were present at the post at the time of the attack, of whom 15 were martyred and three sustained injuries.

Police said that following the explosion, terrorists opened heavy fire and attacked the post from multiple directions. Multiple blasts were heard in the area, causing fear and panic among local residents.

“During the assault, the militants used quadcopters along with heavy weaponry,” a senior administrative official in Bannu told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Sources said that communication with the Fateh Khel police post was lost briefly after the attack.

The powerful blast completely destroyed the post. An armoured vehicle stationed at the post was also destroyed in the attack.

Nearby buildings also suffered severe damage from the blast’s intensity. Following the attack, an emergency was declared in local hospitals.

The Bannu police launched an operation, led by RPO Sajjad, after the attack, and the area was cordoned off by security forces.

Police also tightened security across the city and set up additional checkpoints. Local residents also came out in support of law enforcement personnel.

Rescue 1122 teams concluded the rescue operation at the site of the incident on Sunday morning.

“The rescue operation has been completed. Fifteen bodies and three injured were recovered from the debris,” said Rescue 1122.

Bannu district has been the scene of repeated security incidents in recent months, with both civilians and local security forces coming under attack amid a broader surge in militant violence.

Violence in Bannu has included attacks on police and jirga members, prompting targeted operations by police and security forces in various localities to disrupt militant networks.

Additional input from AFP.

KARACHI: Gas supply was disrupted in major parts of the city on Saturday evening after the Red Line construction work damaged a high-pressure gas pipeline near Jail Chowrangi.

A spokesperson for the Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) said that a12-inch diameter high-pressure pipeline was hit during excavation for the bus rapid transit (BRT) project.

The spokesperson said as a result the gas supply to Saddar, Garden, Jamshed Road, PIB Colony, Lyari, Lines Area and adjacent localities was immediately suspended.

She said that the SSGC teams reached the site and cordoned off the damaged section of the supply line with safety barriers to prevent further risk.

Residents in affected areas reported complete disconnection of gas at 7pm, adversely impacting mainly households, who relied on piped gas during peak cooking hours in the evening.

The spokesperson said that repair work was being carried out on an emergency basis. “Gas supply will be restored gradually once repair work is completed,” she added.

The spokesperson that the repair work was expected to be completed early Sunday morning and supply would be phased back as repaired were completed.

The BRT construction corridor in Karachi has seen multiple utility line strikes in recent months as underground infrastructure intersects with ongoing roadworks.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Petroleum Dealers Association (PPDA) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Saturday criticised the government over rising fuel prices and high petroleum levies, saying the measures had increased hardships for the public and affected fuel retailers.

Under an official notification effective from May 9, the government has imposed a petroleum levy of Rs117.41 per litre on petrol and Rs42.60 per litre on high-speed diesel sold through retail outlets.

The levy on premium fuel grades, including 97 RON and 95 RON petrol, or the high-octane blending component (HOBC), has been fixed at more than Rs305.37 per litre.

The government is also charging a petroleum levy of Rs20.36 per litre on kerosene, Rs15.84 per litre on light diesel oil, and Rs77 per litre on furnace oil, equivalent to Rs82,077 per tonne.

PPDA Vice Chairman Raja Waseem Shehzad criticised the government for increasing indirect taxes inst­ead of providing relief to the public amid rising inflation. He said the heavy levies had made petroleum products unaffordable for consumers and caused financial losses for fuel station owners due to declining sales.

He urged the government to reduce petroleum prices by cutting levies and duties on petroleum products, warning that continued increases could further damage the fuel retail sector and add to public hardship.

“At the same time, the government has not fixed petroleum dealers’ commission on a percentage basis instead of a fixed amount per litre sale, as a result, meeting the cost of doing business is going in the negative,” Mr Shehzad said.

He added that sales had declined while operational costs had increased owing to higher electricity tariffs and other charges.

In a statement, SCBA President Haroonur Rashid, Secretary Malik Zahid Aslam Awan and members of the association’s 28th executive committee expressed concern over the increase in petrol and diesel prices.

They said the latest rise in fuel prices had further aggravated hardships faced by the public and contributed to inflationary pressures.

The SCBA urged the federal government to immediately roll back the recent fuel price increase and introduce additional relief measures, including reductions in electricity tariffs and essential commodity prices.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

A YEAR after the four-day military confrontation between India and Pakistan, it is time for introspection to develop a better understanding of what led India to commit this blatant act of aggression and to draw lessons that can be applied to handling future crises of this sort. First, let’s figure out why India attacked several non-military sites in Pakistan on May 7, killing 31 civilians. Prima facie, it wanted to avenge the April 22 terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

In a knee-jerk reaction, India blamed Pakistan. The latter condemned the incident and called for an impartial investigation. India expected the world to accept its allegations against Pakistan, with no questions asked. But to its surprise, not one country endorsed its allegations. For over two decades since 9/11, India has sold a flawed narrative to the world that Pakistan was the epicentre of terrorism. That lie now stood exposed.

Another plausible reason for the May 7 aggression, codenamed Operation Sindoor, was to establish a new normal that India could use force against Pakistan unilaterally and pre-emptively if it suspected a Pakistani link to terrorism in India. Little did it know that Pakistan was well prepared to beat back its aggression and defend itself. Responding swiftly, the Pakistan Air Force brought down seven Indian aircraft, including the pricey Rafale, which were flying beyond visual range. Instead of backing off, India sent in armed drones to destroy Pakistan’s air defences and radar installations and later its missiles struck three Pakistani bases.

When it became evident that neither international law nor diplomatic efforts would check India’s aggression, Pakistan struck back on May 10, now observed as Youm-i-Marka-i-Haq (Day of the Battle of Truth). Pakistan’s network-based, integrated, and multi-domain counter attack, employing missiles, drones, electronic warfare and cyberattacks, was so emphatic that India ended up asking the US to help secure a ceasefire.

The myth of India’s conventional dominance has been broken.

Some analysts believe that the Indian attack represented its regional assertiveness, with the Hindutva-driven BJP government voicing its ambition to create ‘Akhand Bharat’. This hegemonic agenda is flawed; the Indian subcontinent was never ruled by a single political entity until the British brought administrative unity. In fact, India’s hegemonic attitude towards its own region has hindered its desire for a higher global profile.

Following the Pahalgam attack, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of Pakistanis. This breach of international obligations was triggered, in part, by the hostile anti-Pakistan, anti-Muslim rhetoric that Narendra Modi’s government had indulged in for years, particularly during poll campaigns. Indian threats to disrupt or divert Pakistan’s share of waters are a high-risk strategy because Pakistan will see it as an act of war. New Delhi’s hostile rhetoric and hubris, accentuated by the media, may have compelled India to attack Pakistan. Within days, India received a rude reality check.

Pakistan’s response to Indian aggression has broken the myth of India’s conventional dominance and demolished its narrative that links Pakistan to terrorism. Pakistan’s diplomatic space also expanded as its success resonated with world leaders, including the US president. Saudi Arabia signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Pakistan. Later, Pakistan contributed to efforts for an end to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and mediated a ceasefire between Iran and the US. Since it all started with Pakistan’s sterling performance last May, Marka-i-Haq has become a turning point in regional geopolitics.

Will India re­­s­u­­me its paused Ope­ration Sindoor? It appears that while its armed forces address their sho­­rtcomings, Sin­do­­or is continuing through proxies such as the TTP and BLA. Knowing that the current global environment won’t accept its politicisation of terrorism, India might not embark on a kinetic misadventure for now. However, given the hubris of its government, irrationality can resurge. Pakistan must, therefore, be prepared for any Indian decision to launch Sindoor 2.

How should Pakistan leverage its high military and diplomatic profile to convert geopolitical dividends into geo-economic gains? A good starting point is ensuring the ease of doing business, joint ventures under CPEC, developing economic zones and boosting investor confidence. The government should also find ways to reduce input costs for industries, such as pursuing solar solutions. Importantly, it must muster the political will to undertake much-awaited structural reforms in institutional and bureaucratic governance, which are essential for our economic and human security.

The writer is chairman Sanober Institute and former foreign secretary of Pakistan.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

THE IMF’s approval of the latest review of Pakistan’s ongoing Fund programme comes at a moment of growing global economic volatility. With the Middle East crisis disrupting energy markets, its timing is particularly significant for a country whose external position remains vulnerable to imported energy shocks.

For Pakistan, whose balance-of-payments position depends heavily on external financing and remittance stability, the new tranche offers some respite. The approval of the review was not in doubt. It was just a matter of time, as Islamabad remains broadly on track under the programme. However, it did not come automatically. The government reportedly accepted a dozen new conditions, pledging adherence to pre-war targets to keep economic stabilisation efforts on track.

A most consequential condition was evident in the decision to maintain a tight monetary stance despite mounting pressure for rate cuts. The IMF’s emphasis on guarding against inflation reflects concern that higher global energy prices could spill over into the larger economy. This means Islamabad is being asked to prioritise macroeconomic stability over growth impulse. Equally significant is the politically tough commitment to continue dismantling untargeted energy subsidies for lower-middle-income consumers. More importantly, the government has agreed to deliver a primary budget surplus equal to 2pc of GDP.

The IMF’s praise for programme implementation should therefore not be taken as a victory. The current stability remains externally financed and is not rooted in durable productivity gains or export competitiveness. Hence, macroeconomic gains have remained fragile, making it all the more necessary to follow the Fund’s advice and stay the course.

Our past engagements with the lender have followed a familiar pattern: initial compliance under pressure, temporary stabilisation and eventual policy reversals once immediate financing needs ease. The current external environment leaves little room for such slippages, especially with the conflict overwhelming global markets. Rising oil prices alone have the potential to widen the import bill sharply, strain reserves and reignite inflationary pressures. Any premature easing of fiscal or monetary discipline could quickly erode the stability achieved so far.

However, the deeper challenge lies beyond reviews and tranches. Pakistan’s economy cannot forever rely on lenders to finance weaknesses that remain politically inconvenient to address. Broadening the tax base, reforming SOEs, improving energy efficiencies and enhancing export competitiveness are measures that can no longer be deferred.

The global economy is entering a period of heightened uncertainty in which external financing conditions may become tighter and geopolitical disruptions more frequent. In such conditions, economic stability will depend less on emergency inflows and more on whether Pakistan can undertake reforms that reduce its dependence on them.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

IT is one of the enduring ironies in South Asia that even after stepping back from the brink of a potentially disastrous confrontation in May last year, India and Pakistan have been unable to move towards a meaningful dialogue.

When announcing the ceasefire on May 10, US President Donald Trump congratulated both countries for showing “common sense and great intelligence”. Soon afterward, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Islamabad and New Delhi had agreed to begin talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site. Yet, one year later, those promised talks remain elusive. The brief triumph of pragmatism quickly gave way to familiar mistrust, hardened political positions, and strategic posturing. More strikingly, the international actors who had facilitated the ceasefire, including the US itself, showed little interest in converting crisis management into a structured peace process. The outcome is that, on the anniversary of last year’s stand-off, defence superiority is being projected by both countries through a verbal war.

Though India rejected any prospects of talks with Pakistan after Rubio’s statement, a few attempts were still made to consolidate the ceasefire between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. This raised hopes that both might still be able to sit across the table from each other, even in the midst of the worst crisis. Similar optimism prevailed when the directors general of military operations of both sides effectively used the hotline, which has remained functional since 1971 and was established to help de-escalate crises.

There is also some hope in India’s recent decision to let Pakistani sportsmen participate in international events on its soil, although bilateral sporting ties haven’t been restored. However, a more optimistic aspect is that both countries still interact, albeit in limited ways and mainly through informal diplomatic channels. After the crisis, at least four reported Track 1.5 and Track 2 meetings were held at different locations between 2025 and February 2026, involving strategists, parliamentarians, former diplomats, and some security representatives. These reported talks were deliberately kept discreet and produced no public readouts, which is itself revealing: communication existed, but only under political cover.

A year after the May hostilities, mistrust continues to dominate India-Pakistan ties.

Apparently, these dialogues remained largely focused on military and strategic issues. Yet the real irony is that a public voice for peace from civil society in both countries has remained absent. Whatever limited and half-hearted attempts were made remained largely confined to Zoom chat rooms and failed to create any meaningful impact. The media is not interested in peace; it sells hatred and turns leaders into slaves of their own rhetoric.

In India’s case, hatred against Pakistan has been politicised by the ruling party and used for electoral gains. This has also become a hurdle to dialogue. A more critical development is that, in the ongoing strategic and defence doctrine review in India, Pakistan remains at the core of New Delhi’s threat perception. As this threat perception narrows, it may leave even less space for political engagement in the future. In fact, India is trying to weaponise every available leverage against Pakistan, including water.

Pakistan’s case is not very different from India’s, but its major apprehension is that India is exploiting its internal conflicts, mainly in Balochistan and along the Afghan border, to destabilise the country. Despite these concerns, Pakistan has an edge over India: the ability to engage in dialogue with India at any time, as the civil-military leadership is on the same page and no mainstream political party in Pakistan openly opposes dialogue with India. Moreover, for all its anti-Indian rhetoric, the Pakistani media is less toxic than the Indian media, which feeds hatred against Pakistan to its audience round the clock.

Few might have noticed that during the last few decades, the core issues between the two countries, once part of the composite dialogue framework, have gradually moved to the back-burner, while the issue of terrorism has taken centre stage in the conflict between them. As mentioned earlier, Pakistan holds India responsible for many of its internal security crises and acts of terrorism, while India makes similar accusations against Pakistan.

India once used the terrorism narrative to diplomatically isolate Pakistan at the global level, but over time, Pakistan has removed that stigma. The May stand-off last year also appears to have reduced the international appeal of India’s position on terrorism. Pakistan’s successes against the Islamic State-Khorasan improved its standing with the US and parts of the wider international community. Over the past year, Pakistan has gained diplomatic and geopolitical space, which helped create a more balanced environment during the crisis. The rest was shaped by Trump, who publicly took credit for the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and repeatedly referred to Indian jet losses.

One must give credit to Pakistan that, over the last two and a half decades, it has fought a war against terrorism on its own soil and has abandoned or suspended support for groups that were once allegedly used as proxies. What greater evidence could there be than Pakistan’s strained relationship with the Afghan Taliban in Kabul, who were once widely regarded as Pakistan’s proxy? Ironically, India is now engaging with them.

The point is that, despite terrorism remaining at the core of the conflict and continuing to shape the two adversaries’ strategic thinking, this is perhaps the first moment in decades that Pakistan has openly talked to India about the issue of terrorism and sought similar acknowledgement and reciprocity from New Delhi.

Although the space for a broad-based peace process between the two countries has shrunk, optimism is the only way forward for peace-loving citizens in both nations. Keeping that optimism alive, however, requires consistent effort. The seeds of hope still exist in the form of limited informal diplomatic contacts and weak but surviving civil society channels between the two sides. After all, even miracles need a starting hand.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

• Yango costs rise 64pc; Islamabad fares up 35pc
• Commuters turn to carpooling groups
• WhatsApp hubs grow as safety fears limit shared rides
• Petrol prices have surged to Rs415 per litre from Rs253 in February

KARACHI: “The rates seem to have doubled,” said Namrah, who used to pay Rs600-650 to commute from Nazimabad to Tipu Sultan using ride-sharing services. After the first jump in petrol prices following the US and Israel’s attack on Iran, fares surged to as high as Rs1,800 during peak hours.

At the time, the easiest explanation lay in the first fuel price hike triggered by the war that amounted to a Rs55 jump in the first week of March. However, the initial increases also coincided with Ramazan and Eid, when many drivers had gone home or were not accepting rides, creating a shortage that pushed prices even higher. Combined with the psychological impact of rising fuel costs, the mobility sector saw fare surges that now appear to have settled at elevated levels. Today, Namrah pays up to Rs1,000 during peak hours, with an average commute cost of around Rs700.

Namrah joined the WhatsApp group CommUnityX to explore carpooling options. Originally formed as a networking group, it also serves as a hub for ride-sharing after its administrator, Ameeque Malik, suggested that its 600-plus members look for solutions among themselves rather than limit discussions to venting frustrations over rising costs.

Built on a similar concept, Carpool Pakistan aligns routes and pools commuters based on their pick-up and drop-off points, says HR executive Hamnah, who also joined CommUnityX to explore shared-ride options.

While carpooling has its merits, it also raises concerns. “I joined the group to find carpool options, but I do not have regular hours, which makes carpooling tricky,” says Namrah. “Plus, there are safety concerns.” In the same WhatsApp group, several messages warn women in particular to be cautious about getting into cars with strangers.

Given the limited availability of safe public transport, ‘ride-hailing remains a vital option due to its convenience, reliability, and access to safer mobility choices for women,’ says inDrive.

‘Earning what you are burning’

Recently, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the country’s weekly fuel bill had risen to $800 million from $300m. The latest fuel hike pushed petrol prices up by Rs15 to Rs415 per litre, further fanning inflationary pressures that are rippling across sectors, including ride-sharing services.

On average, a single Yango vehicle undergoes two oil changes per month and covers 200-250 km per day. For a small hatchback such as the Suzuki Alto or Suzuki Cultus, that translates to about 15 litres of petrol per day.

On February 27, before the first US bomb fell on Iran, petrol was priced at Rs253 per litre. It now stands at Rs415. This pushes the daily fuel cost for a ride-sharing car from Rs3,795 to Rs6,225 — a 64pc increase that is ultimately passed on to customers.

While in Karachi and Lahore, the cumulative fare changes are up to 20pc, in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, rates have increased up to 35pc, says Yango’s spokesperson, attributing it to longer average trip distances and higher fuel consumption per ride.

“We are burning what we are earning,” says Namrah, who estimated she spent about Rs22,000 a month on commuting, before the last two petrol price hikes. “I can’t get on a Bykea ride because there are no female riders. Going in a rickshaw means showing up to work in a dishevelled state,” she laments.

Similarly, Hamnah’s monthly commute bill has risen from Rs18,000 to Rs23,000, often supplemented with Yango or inDrive on days requiring late sittings. “Our commute expenses have gone up, but our salaries have not,” she says ruefully.

Changing demand patterns

One cannot quit a job because the commute has become too expensive. And while the government has announced work-from-home measures, many companies still require employees to be physically present in offices.

Overall mobility demand remains strong as ride-hailing continues to be a daily necessity for many commuters.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

GWADAR: Amid rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic importance of Gwadar Port has significantly increased due to its shorter access routes to Iran and Central Asia, along with investor-friendly incentives such as tax exemptions, free storage facilities, and modern infrastructure.

This was stated by Gwadar Port Authority (GPA) Chairman Noorul Haq Baloch during a meeting with members of the All Pakistan Shipping Association (APSA) in Karachi. He said the port is increasingly being viewed as a safe alternative trade gateway for the region.

He said Gwadar has the potential to become the future hub of regional trade and logistics because of its low operational costs, modern facilities, and shorter trade routes. He added that the Gabd-Rimdan border route has emerged as an effective multi-modal corridor for promoting trade with Iran and Central Asia.

Mr Baloch briefed the APSA members on the prevailing regional situation, the strategic significance of Gwadar Port, and issues related to transit and transshipment operations. He stated that Gwadar Port is steadily evolving into a major centre for regional trade and logistics, with its importance increasing day by day. He noted that the port’s approach channel, measuring approximately 4.5km, is the shortest among the country’s ports. He said that a trade route exists from Gwadar to Zahedan and onwards to Central Asia.

Recalling developments from 2015, he said the first container convoy from China successfully reached Gwadar Port through the Balochistan route, demonstrating Gwadar’s full potential to connect China with Central Asia.

Referring to tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, Mr Baloch said Gwadar could serve as a secure and alternative trade route in the event of war or sanctions. He added that access from Gwadar to eastern regions of Iran and Central Asia is several hundred kilometres shorter than routes from other Pakistani cities, significantly reducing logistics costs and transportation time.

He said investors and industrialists operating in the Gwadar Free Zone are being offered tax exemptions and special incentives, including duty-free import of machinery and equipment.

Mr Baloch said that import and export cargo at Gwadar Port is provided with up to 30 days of free storage, unlike other ports where storage charges apply. Additional free storage facilities are available at cargo sheds, container yards, and repair sheds operated under the Gwadar Port Authority to further facilitate investors.

According to him, these facilities are connected through a modern six-lane expressway linking the port and free zone to the coastal highway.

Mr Baloch urged shipping companies and traders to shift their operations towards Gwadar Port. He also revealed that a trade delegation from Iran is expected to visit Gwadar soon.

He said that Gwadar Port, owing to its low operational rates, modern infrastructure and strategic location, possesses strong potential to emerge as a major trade corridor for Pakistan’s economy.

Participants at the meeting expressed interest in the facilities available at Gwadar Port, particularly regarding transit trade with Iran.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

The week of May 6 - May 10 marks the first anniversary of the five-day military conflict between Pakistan and India.

The conflict was sparked by the April 22 Pahalgam attack on tourists in India-occupied Kashmir, which New Delhi, without evidence, linked to Pakistan.

In a dangerous escalation, New Delhi launched deadly air strikes in Punjab and Azad Kashmir on May 7. Pakistan retaliated by downing five Indian planes in air-to-air combat, later raising the tally to seven.

Following tit-for-tat strikes on each other’s airbases, and the launch of Pakistan Army’s Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, both sides agreed to a ceasefire on May 10 after American intervention.

The Pakistan Army named the period of conflict from April 22-May 10 “Marka-i-Haq”.

Throughout the week, Dawn will be sharing daily headlines from the brief conflict when tensions between both countries reached a boiling point.

Here’s a look at Dawn’s front page published on May 11, 2025.

ISLAMABAD: After a three-day heat wave in northern parts of the country, the Pakistan Meteorological Department has forecast rain in the upper regions from Sunday evening (today) to May 12.

The Met Office stated that dust storms, thunderstorms and rain are likely in the upper parts, with occasional gaps, from May 10 to May 12.

According to the department, a fresh westerly wave is likely to approach the northwestern parts of the country today and persist in the upper regions until the night of May 12.

Under the influence of this weather system, dust storms, thunderstorms and rain are expected across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, specifically in Chitral, Dir, Swat, Kalam, Shangla, Buner, Kohistan, Malakand, Battagram, Mans­ehra, Abbottabad, Balakot, Haripur, Swabi, Mardan, Nowshera, Charsadda, Peshawar, Bajaur, Mohmand, Orakzai, Khyber, Kohat, Kurram, Hangu and Karak.

Westerly wave to bring widespread relief from today; landslide warnings issued; south remains in grip of heat

Similar weather is expected in Punjab and the capital territory, including Murree, Galiyat, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Attock, Chakwal, Jhelum, Khushab, Joharabad, Sargodha, Mianwali, Faisa­labad, Sahiwal, Jhang, Lahore, Shei­khupura, Okara, Gujranwala, Sialkot and Narowal.

Meanwhile, rain, wind and thunderstorms are expected from May 11 to May 13, with occasional gaps, in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), including Diamir, Astore, Ghizer, Skardu, Hunza, Gilgit, Ghanche and Shigar.

The system will also affect Kashmir, including Neelum Valley, Muzaffarabad, Poonch, Hattian, Bagh, Haveli, Sudhanoti, Kotli, Bhimber and Mirpur.

“Dust-thunderstorm and rain are likely to bring relief from hot weather in upper parts, while very hot weather conditions are expected to continue in southern parts,” including south Punjab, Sindh and parts of Balochistan, the PMD stated.

The department noted that windstorms and lightning may damage weak structures, such as electric poles, billboards and solar panels, during the forecast period.

“Landslides may occur in vulnerable areas of upper KP, GB and Kashmir during the forecast period,” the Met Office warned.

Farmers were asked to manage their crops in accordance with weather fluctuations. Tourists and travellers are advised to remain cautious and avoid unnecessary travel during this period. Additionally, all authorities concerned were advised to remain vigilant.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

• Pakistan-India ties still trapped by Delhi’s intransigence, US failure to create political process after ceasefire
• Islamabad’s institutional coherence shattered New Delhi’s illusions it was dealing with ‘weak neighbour’
• Water war takes centre stage as Indus treaty remains ‘unilaterally held in abeyance’

THE fighting lasted barely 90 hours, but the political consequences have proved far more durable.

While neither India nor Pakistan got what they expected from the flare-up of 2025, very few could have predicted that less than a year later, it would be Pakistan that emerged as the diplomatic lynchpin in the region, while India remained relegated to the side-lines.

Today, the relationship between the two neighbours remains frozen in an unusually rigid state; there is no war, but there is no diplomacy worth the name, either. The border is shut, trade is suspended and the Indus Waters Treaty remains unilaterally held in abeyance by New Delhi.

Military hotlines between the two countries are functioning, but they are emergency mechanisms rather than channels of engagement.

The resulting situation is not that of stability in the conventional sense, but a colder equilibrium sustained by deterrence, mistrust and the absence of political alternatives.

At the time the US facilitated ceasefire was announced, there was an understanding — at least according to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement — that military de-escalation would be followed by talks at a neutral venue.

The US role for crisis management had been unusually visible and President Donald Trump publicly claimed credit for helping secure the ceasefire. So, there was a strong hope for a structured engagement between the two sides when the conflict ended.

But that process never materialised; India quickly rejected any suggestion of external mediation and insisted that the ceasefire understanding emerged through direct communication at the level of the two directors general of military operations.

It did so because New Delhi had long opposed internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute, and Trump’s public handling of the episode caused disquiet in Indian official circles.

Pakistan, meanwhile, believed that the conflict had restored a measure of strategic balance and that the post-war environment would generate a diplomatic momentum leading to improvement in the relationship and some semblance of normalisation.

But things did not turn out that way, mostly because Washington — after helping stop the fighting — had not invested sustained diplomatic capital in building a political framework around the ceasefire.

The impression left behind was that the US could help stop wars in South Asia, but may no longer possess either the leverage or the appetite to sustain a structured peace process afterwards.

India’s loss, Pakistan’s gain

Indian resistance to any formal mediatory role, meanwhile, further weakened the possibility of follow up diplomacy.

Besides Delhi’s refusal to accept any external mediation on the Kashmir dispute, Indian strategic thinking before May 2025 viewed Pakistan as a state weakened by internal instability, economic distress and persistent terrorist violence.

Therefore, the widening asymmetry in economic size, diplomatic influence and military modernisation encouraged a belief that India no longer needed engagement with Pakistan, and could manage the relationship through pressure, coercive signalling and diplomatic isolation instead.

The conflict, especially the way it ended, complicated that assumption.

Pakistan, to the surprise of many, demonstrated a great degree of institutional coherence during the crisis, absorbing military pressure, maintaining escalation control and mounting a coordinated response involving drones, missiles and air power. The conflict produced a narrative that Pakistan was strategically resilient, despite its internal difficulties.

Equally important, the crisis restored Pakistan’s geopolitical relevance. US engagement intensified during the conflict; China, Turkiye and Iran publicly backed Islamabad diplomatically and Gulf states quietly remained involved in de-escalation efforts.

Islamabad then went on to use the post-war period to improve its diplomatic visibility, particularly as regional tensions surrounding Iran later increased international interest in Islamabad’s intermediary role.

But none of this fundamentally altered the broader asymmetry between India and Pakistan. India still retains overwhelming long term advantages in economic weight and global positioning, but the conflict shattered the assumption, both in Delhi and around the world, that Pakistan had become “strategically irrelevant”.

An Indian military analyst, who has a good understanding of the Modi government’s thinking on foreign policy and security matters, told Dawn, “India is still operating on the assumption that that the asymmetry continues to favour it, though some important lessons were learnt from the conflict.”

Policymakers, he said, continue to believe that long-term geopolitical and economic trends remain firmly in India’s favour.

That explanation sums up the prevailing situation, where even after strategic recalibration, India has shown little interest in re-engagement with Pakistan.

Lack of engagement

Part of the reason for the India intransigence lies in its domestic politics, where engagement with Pakistan carries political costs.

In this situation, India prefers crisis management over structured dialogue.

Dr Moeed Yusuf, a former national security adviser, believes the present arrangement cannot hold indefinitely. “It is only sustainable till you don’t have the next crisis,” he said, arguing that the absence of political engagement leaves both sides vulnerable to another sudden confrontation.

He said India’s domestic political environment and years of anti-Pakistan narratives had narrowed the space for reconciliation, adding that while improving ties was essential for regional development, he was “not at all optimistic at this point”.

Moreover, the issue of unfounded terrorism allegations also remains central to that paralysis. India keeps the terrorism bogey alive and continues to maintain that meaningful improvement in relations is difficult without addressing its “concerns”.

Pakistan rightfully rejects those accusations, of which India has failed to provide any evidence, and argues that it has itself paid a heavy price over the past two decades in fighting militancy and terrorism.

Islamabad’s consistent position has been that sustained dialogue remains necessary precisely because of these disputes and risks. But the Indian hard line on the issue has narrowed the diplomatic space even further after the May 2025 conflict demonstrated how quickly such incidents can trigger wider military escalation.

In the absence of formal diplomacy, unofficial channels have continued to function quietly.

Over the past year, there have been periodic reports of Track 1.5 and Track 2 interactions involving retired officials, academics and policy interlocutors in places such as London, Muscat, Doha and Bangkok. These contacts have limited utility, but preserve communication during periods of estrangement and allow both sides to quietly test ideas and assess intentions.

After Kashmir, water becomes new front

Meanwhile, an important shift has quietly taken place in the substance of the bilateral dispute itself.

Kashmir remains unresolved and politically central, but has receded from active diplomacy after the conflict. In its place, water security has emerged as perhaps the most immediate and dangerous point of friction.

India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance marked a significant departure from past practice, since the treaty had survived nearly all previous wars and crises. Pakistan viewed the move as the “weaponisation of water” and warned that interference with the Indus system threatens millions dependent on agriculture, irrigation and hydropower.

Climate pressures and long term water insecurity have made the issue even more sensitive.

Former Federal Flood Commission chairman Ahmed Kamal said Pakistan had recently raised concerns with India over reduced flows in the Chenab. “Future cooperation on water security issue rests with India and would be determined by how it responds to Pakistan’s concern,” he said recalling that Pakistan’s commissioner for Indus waters recently took up the matter with India.

Ironically, however, water may also become one of the few issues capable of forcing limited engagement in the future. Even governments unwilling to resume broader political dialogue may eventually find it difficult to indefinitely avoid technical coordination over river flows, treaty obligations and data-sharing mechanisms.

While the space for comprehensive dialogue currently appears unlikely, narrower and more technical contacts involving water management, ceasefire stabilisation, crisis communication, humanitarian issues and limited security understandings may still be possible.

Outside actors including the US, Gulf states or European governments could potentially facilitate such engagement quietly with-out formally mediating the broader dispute.

None of this would resolve the underlying political conflict, but may help reduce the risk of another uncontrolled crisis in a region where trust has sharply eroded.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026