Today

It’s May 14, so she posts a birthday photo on Instagram: a selfie in scrubs after a long hospital shift, or maybe a studio portrait with balloons and a caption: “Grateful for 22.”

In the portrait, her hair is curled softly around her face, her gentle smile lighting up the frame. Friends flood the comments section with heart emojis and warm wishes.

At home, her mum bakes her favourite cake in white and black; her favourite colours. Her dad says a quiet prayer, blessing her for the year ahead. Her younger brother teases her over the phone, calling her “old” and laughing together like always.

This version of today exists only in imagination. There’s no photo. No candles. No celebration.

Leah Sharibu is still in captivity. She turns 22 today.

“She wanted to be a doctor,” her younger and only sibling, Donald Sharibu, tells HumAngle. “It wasn’t just about studying medicine. She liked helping people. She always offered to assist someone with chores, homework, anything.”

Leah was just 14, three months shy of her 15th birthday, when the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), a Boko Haram breakaway, stormed her school, Government Girls’ Science and Technical College in Dapchi, Yobe State, northeastern Nigeria. It was on Monday evening, Feb. 19, 2018, and they raided the dormitories, herding terrified students into waiting trucks. One hundred and ten schoolgirls, including Leah, were abducted. 

Five died along the way. 

By March 21, 2018, 104 had been released. But Leah was left behind.

Donald, now 20, still remembers when the rumours about the attack in Dapchi began; he was in a boarding school in Nguru, several kilometres from home. 

“Like me, most of my roommates were from Dapchi. At first, I thought the attack was somewhere in the town. I didn’t know it was my sister’s school,” Donald recounts.

He borrowed a phone and called home. Their mother, a teacher, picked up. “She said Leah’s school had been attacked,” he says. “I brushed it off. I didn’t think she was involved. She’s smart, careful. I thought maybe she escaped and would come back.”

The next day, his mother called. She was sobbing. Leah had been abducted.

Donald was still convinced that his sister would escape, and indeed, she attempted to flee while in captivity. Fatima Mohammed, one of the released Dapchi schoolgirls, told HumAngle that she was caught, and then the insurgents realised she was a Christian. 

Fatima said Leah was asked to convert to Islam or remain their captive. “We begged her to pretend to convert, but she refused,” she recounted.

As time trudged forward with no word, Donald’s hope for his sister’s escape slowly faded. The family, unable to bear the weight of their grief in Dapchi, eventually relocated to Yola, the Adamawa State capital, seeking some semblance of peace far from the memories that haunted them.

“My mother resigned from teaching at a school in Dapchi, and then we left,” he says.

Donald also left Nguru. His parents transferred him to ECWA Staff School in Jos, Plateau State, North-central Nigeria, where he completed his secondary education.

Originally from Hong, a local government area in Adamawa State, the Sharibus are a devout Christian family; they attend Evangelical Church Winning All, commonly known as ECWA, one of the largest Christian denominations in northern Nigeria. Their faith runs deep, not performative but lived in prayer, community, and Leah’s quiet resolve. 

Donald had just returned from a Sunday service when he joined a WhatsApp call with HumAngle. Like his sister, he is deeply rooted in his faith. He is the president of the Christian fellowship on campus, holding on to his belief, even when answers remain out of reach.

Seven years on, Donald is going into his final year at the American University of Nigeria in Yola, studying International and Comparative Politics, a future his sister was meant to experience first, as the family’s first-generation graduate.

She was in SS2, just one academic year from finishing secondary school, when she was abducted. By now, she should have been in her final year at the university, perhaps doing clinical rounds in a hospital. Even if admission hurdles in Nigeria had forced a change in course, and she didn’t read medicine, Leah might have graduated, completed her NYSC year, with an enlarged picture of her in khaki uniform sitting on the wall in their parents’ living room with quiet pride, and even secured her first job.

“She would have been doing something by now,” Donald says. “Leah is hardworking.”

Many of the released Dapchi schoolgirls dropped out of school after their return and married. Aisha Mahmuda, one of the girls who also led the failed escape plan Leah was part of, said she and her mother decided that returning to school was not worth the risk. “So we agreed that I would just get married,” Aisha told HumAngle. 

But Donald believes it would have been different for his sister. “Our dad didn’t go beyond secondary school, but always said that education is everything. He pushed us to reach further,” he says. 

No day goes by without Donald thinking about Leah. They were very close; they attended the same schools until he left for senior secondary school in Nguru. She was the older sister who helped with homework and shared inside jokes. “She is kind and jovial,” he recounts. 

He imagines her sometimes. Calling, having conversations, sharing stories, praying, and everything else.

“I really look forward to such a day,” he says. 

For now, though, there are no new photographs, no voice notes, or video calls. Just fleeting rumours and unverified reports: whispers of a forced marriage to at least two insurgents, of children born in captivity, of a girl becoming a woman under a regime of coercion, isolation, and silence.

“It is hurtful, no one, no family should go through this,” Donald says. “She used to talk about marriage. But not like this. Not at this age.”

Some of the Dapchi girls who were released told HumAngle that while they were in captivity, they would sometimes have conversations with the wives of the insurgents. Many of them “told us that they became their wives after they were abducted in the same manner that we were.”

Multiple sources confirmed to HumAngle that Leah is being held in the Bosso region of the Republic of Niger, a rural community along Nigeria’s northern border.

According to Philip Dimka, a clinical psychologist and trauma therapist who works with conflict-affected individuals in North-central Nigeria, spending seven years in captivity can profoundly affect a young person’s mental health, development, and identity. “At that age, captivity is deeply damaging,” he says. “It’s a crucial stage of growth. Being forced into a new environment can trigger isolation, confusion, and an identity crisis. Prolonged stress, especially with abuse, can lead to complex trauma or PTSD. The brain is still developing, and constant fear can disrupt that process.”

One possible consequence, he notes, is Stockholm syndrome, where captives form emotional bonds with their captors. “It’s not about love or loyalty,” he explains. “It’s about fear and powerlessness. The mind, often subconsciously, finds ways to adapt and create a sense of stability.” Still, not everyone develops such bonds. Reintegration can be jarring, especially when families or society expect a return to ‘normal’. Without proper psychological support, trauma may surface as anxiety, depression, or a fractured sense of self. “Healing is possible,” Philip added. 

The Nigerian government has repeatedly promised to secure Leah’s release, but the promises have rung hollow. Advocacy groups and faith-based organisations have also called attention to her case, but as the years pass, global headlines shift and the urgency fades from the conversation.

“Our government doesn’t prioritise the safety of its people. We need to treat symptoms of armed violence early, it becomes difficult when we allow it to grow,” says Donald.

Still, for the Sharibus, every day is a waiting day; they’ve not heard from her since her abduction. Every phone call brings hope, every rumour a spark, and then, often, disappointment.

For her family, Leah’s 22nd birthday will be marked in quiet prayer, far from where she should be. Her mum fainted when she first heard about the abduction. It weighed so much on them, but Donald says his parents are doing much better now.

“We are hopeful that she will return,” he says. “We’re not giving up.”

“We pray for her as a family every day,” Donald tells HumAngle.  

The Sharibus are not the only ones praying. At noon on her birthday this year, dozens of well-wishers will gather on Zoom to intercede for her release. The event is organised by the Leah Foundation, a non-profit founded in May 2018 by a coalition of Christian leaders, in partnership with her parents, after the world learned that she was still in captivity because she refused to renounce her faith.

“We believe God responds to united prayer. Seven is a number of completion, and we ask God to release Leah from her 7-year captivity,” the organisation said in a statement.

In an era where technological paradigms shift with geopolitical winds, where design thinking must account for cultural diplomacy, and where engineering solutions intersect with national security concerns, India faces an epistemic crisis in higher education. The disciplinary silos that have long characterized our academic institutions—compartmentalizing knowledge into business, technology, design, and social sciences—have become intellectual anachronisms. This essay argues not merely for incremental curriculum reform but for a fundamental reconceptualization of knowledge production and transmission across disciplines, with particular emphasis on geopolitical literacy as an intellectual cornerstone for students of all academic backgrounds.

The Epistemological Divide: Empirical Evidence

The data regarding interdisciplinary education in India reveals a stark reality that demands urgent intellectual attention:

• Among India’s premier technological institutions, only 4.3% offer substantive coursework in international relations or geopolitical analysis (IIT Council Report, 2024).
• Within design schools, a mere 2.7% incorporate geopolitical considerations into their curriculum despite the growing importance of cultural diplomacy in global aesthetics (Design Education Review, 2023).
• Computer science programs show particular deficiency, with 91% offering no coursework on the geopolitics of technology, despite India’s positioning in the global digital economy (National Association of Software Companies, 2024).
• Engineering students receive, on average, less than 3.5 credit hours of humanities education throughout their entire degree program (All India Council for Technical Education, 2024).

When juxtaposed against global benchmarks—where leading institutions mandate cross-disciplinary exposure—this disciplinary isolation represents not merely a pedagogical oversight but an intellectual impoverishment with profound implications for India’s future.

The segregation of knowledge into discrete disciplines reflects a Cartesian reductionism increasingly at odds with contemporary epistemology. The complex problems facing modern societies—from climate adaptation to artificial intelligence governance—exist in what philosopher Horst Rittel termed the realm of “wicked problems,” resistant to solutions derived from any single knowledge domain.

Consider these intellectual frameworks that demand cross-disciplinary integration:

1. Systems Theory Perspective: Complex adaptive systems that characterize global affairs cannot be understood through linear causal models typical of siloed education. As philosopher Edgar Morin argues, understanding complexity requires transcending disciplinary boundaries.
2. Epistemic Justice: The privileging of certain knowledge forms (technical, financial) over others (geopolitical, cultural) represents what philosopher Miranda Fricker identifies as “hermeneutical injustice”—denying students conceptual resources needed to interpret their reality.
3. Constructivist Learning Theory: Knowledge constructed through interdisciplinary engagement leads to cognitive frameworks better suited to navigating complexity, as educational theorist Jean Piaget established.
4. Critical Realism Philosophy: The stratified nature of reality (physical, biological, social, geopolitical) means that reduction to any single analytical level produces incomplete understanding—a perspective advanced by philosopher Roy Bhaskar.

NEP 2020: Potential and Contradictions

India’s National Education Policy 2020 ostensibly embraces interdisciplinary education, calling for “holistic and multidisciplinary education” as a foundational principle. Yet a critical analysis reveals significant contradictions between rhetoric and implementation mechanisms:

The policy states, “There will be no hard separations between arts and sciences, between curricular and extracurricular activities, or between vocational and academic streams.”

However, structural implementations reveal persistent disciplinary segregation:

• Credit allocation systems still predominantly favor disciplinary depth over breadth.
• Faculty evaluation metrics continue to reward specialization over integration.
• Administrative structures maintain departmental silos instead of problem-focused organization.
• Funding mechanisms disproportionately support traditional disciplinary research.

What emerges is a form of what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would term “symbolic violence”—the appearance of change while reproducing existing knowledge hierarchies. True interdisciplinary education requires not merely allowing elective courses but fundamentally restructuring the epistemological foundations of higher education.

Geopolitics as Foundational Knowledge

The argument for geopolitical literacy extends beyond traditional international relations frameworks. Geopolitics offers essential intellectual scaffolding for understanding the context in which all disciplines operate:

For Design Students

Design does not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. Consider:

• The emergence of “strategic design” as a field addressing complex social problems requires understanding of geopolitical forces.
• Cultural diplomacy increasingly employs design as soft power—87% of nations have invested in design-forward cultural initiatives (UNESCO Cultural Indicators Report, 2023).
• Supply chain aesthetics are shaped by geopolitical realities—the movement of materials, labor, and production reflects power dynamics that designers must navigate.
• Design futures work must account for geopolitical scenarios—42% of failed design innovations demonstrated ignorance of geopolitical constraints (Design Management Institute, 2024).

For Technology Students

The bifurcation of global technology ecosystems along geopolitical lines demands attention:

• Semiconductor supply chains have become explicitly geopolitical, with India’s positioning requiring strategic understanding—the $10 billion India Semiconductor Mission operates in a geopolitical context students must comprehend.
• Data sovereignty regulations reflect geopolitical tensions—76% of new technology regulations in India’s key export markets derive from geopolitical considerations (MEITY Analysis, 2023).
• AI ethics frameworks diverge along geopolitical lines, with 63% of major differences attributable to geopolitical positioning rather than technical considerations (AI Ethics Global Review, 2024).
• Technology standards-setting processes have become battlegrounds for national influence—participation requires diplomatic as well as technical expertise.

For Other Non-Social Science Fields

• Agriculture students: 71% of agricultural market disruptions in the past decade stemmed from geopolitical events rather than climate or technology factors.
• Medical students: Global health security increasingly operates as a function of geopolitical relationships—pandemic response coordination shows an 84% correlation with geopolitical alliance structures.
• Architecture students: Urban resilience planning now incorporates geopolitical risk assessment in 67% of major global architectural firms.

Reimagining Interdisciplinary Education

Meaningful interdisciplinary education must transcend the tokenism of isolated courses to embrace what philosopher Hannah Arendt termed “praxis”—reflective action informed by theoretical understanding. This requires

Structural Reforms

1. Epistemic Integration: Core courses should integrate knowledge across disciplines rather than merely adding electives—for example, “Geopolitics of Design” rather than “Design” plus “Geopolitics.”
2. Faculty Development: Create joint appointments across departments and invest in faculty capacity to teach across disciplinary boundaries.
3. Assessment Revolution: Move beyond discipline-specific metrics to evaluate students’ ability to synthesize knowledge across domains.
4. Institutional Architecture: Reorganize academic units around problems rather than disciplines—establishing centers for “Technology Governance” rather than separate computer science and political science departments.

Pedagogical Innovations

1. Wicked Problem Studios: Project-based learning focused on complex challenges requiring multiple knowledge domains
2. Simulation-Based Learning: Complex geopolitical simulations where students from different disciplines must collaborate to address scenarios
3. Embedded Fieldwork: Place students in contexts where disciplinary knowledge must be applied within geopolitical complexities.
4. Collaborative Research: Structure research initiatives requiring teams spanning disciplines.

The resistance to interdisciplinary education reflects not merely administrative convenience but deeper intellectual commitments to particular forms of knowledge production. As sociologist Thomas Kuhn demonstrated, paradigm shifts in knowledge structures face resistance from established practitioners. This resistance takes several forms:

1. Epistemic Hierarchy: The implicit ranking of knowledge types that privileges technical over contextual understanding
2. Disciplinary Identity: Faculty self-conception rooted in disciplinary expertise rather than problem-solving capacity
3. Measurement Fetishism: Overreliance on discipline-specific metrics that cannot capture interdisciplinary competence
4. Resource Competition: Zero-sum thinking about curriculum space and faculty resources

Beyond Employability

While much discourse around education reform focuses on employability, the argument for interdisciplinary geopolitical education runs deeper. At stake is what philosopher Martha Nussbaum identifies as the “capability for critical thinking”—the intellectual capacity to comprehend and engage with complex realities.

The segregation of knowledge domains impoverishes not merely professional competence but civic capacity. In a democracy increasingly facing complex, interconnected challenges, citizens require integrated understanding. This represents what political philosopher Michael Sandel terms “civic education”—preparation not merely for economic contribution but for meaningful participation in collective self-governance.

Empirical Evidence of Interdisciplinary Impact

The case for interdisciplinary education is not merely philosophical but empirically grounded:

• Teams comprising members with diverse disciplinary backgrounds demonstrate 43% higher problem-solving efficacy for complex challenges (Harvard Interdisciplinary Research Initiative, 2023).
• Organizations led by individuals with interdisciplinary education show 37% greater adaptive capacity during geopolitical disruptions (McKinsey Global Institute, 2024).
• Patents filed by teams with interdisciplinary composition show 28% higher citation impact and 41% greater commercial application (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2024).
• National innovation systems with higher rates of interdisciplinary collaboration demonstrate 23% faster response to complex crises (OECD Innovation Policy Review, 2023).

Beyond NEP 2020: A Radical Reimagining

While NEP 2020 provides rhetorical support for interdisciplinary education, implementation requires more fundamental reconceptualization. True interdisciplinary education demands:

1. Philosophical Reconciliation: Acknowledging that the fragmentation of knowledge is itself a historical construct rather than an epistemological necessity
2. Structural Transformation: Moving beyond departmental structures to problem-focused organization
3. Pedagogical Revolution: Replacing linear curriculum models with networked knowledge structures
4. Assessment Reconception: Developing evaluation frameworks that value synthesis and integration
5. Faculty Transformation: Recruiting and developing scholars capable of transcending disciplinary boundaries

The Intellectual Imperative

The argument for interdisciplinary geopolitical education transcends instrumental concerns about career preparation. What is at stake is nothing less than our capacity to comprehend and address the defining challenges of our era.

For India’s position in the global knowledge economy—and more fundamentally, for its democratic vitality—the integration of geopolitical understanding across disciplines represents not a curricular luxury but an intellectual necessity. The continued segregation of knowledge domains reflects not merely administrative convenience but an impoverished conception of education itself.

As philosopher John Dewey argued, education must prepare students not merely for the world as it exists but for creating the world that could be. In an era of profound geopolitical transformation, this preparation requires not the reinforcement of intellectual silos but their transcendence. The question is not whether design students, technology students, and others should be “allowed” to learn international relations—it is whether we can afford the intellectual impoverishment that results from preventing them from doing so.

Brazil, China call for direct talks as the “only way to end the conflict” between Russia and Ukraine.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has pledged to press his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to attend negotiations with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Turkiye, adding to calls on Moscow to enter talks and end its three-year war.

Lula is expected to stop in the Russian capital on the way back from attending a regional forum in China.

“I’ll try to talk to Putin,” Lula said at a news conference in Beijing on Wednesday before his departure.

“It costs me nothing to say, ‘hey, comrade Putin, go to Istanbul and negotiate, dammit,’” he said.

The negotiations, expected to take place on Thursday in Turkiye’s commercial hub, Istanbul, would be the first direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow since 2022, shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour.

Lula’s comments come after the Ukrainian foreign minister urged Brazil to use its influence with Russia to secure a face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy.

Brazil and China issued a joint statement on Tuesday calling for direct negotiations as the “only way to end the conflict”.

Zelenskyy earlier dared Putin to meet him in Turkiye, saying if he does not show up, it would show that Moscow is not interested in peace.

He also urged United States President Donald Trump, currently on a tour of Middle Eastern countries, to also visit Turkiye and participate in the talks.

Trump had announced that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio would participate in the talks in Istanbul.

A State Department official said Rubio was expected to be in Istanbul on Friday.

The Kremlin has not yet specified whether Putin will attend in person, stating only that the “Russian delegation will be present”.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying Moscow was ready for serious talks on Ukraine, but doubted Kyiv’s capacity for negotiations.

Four days after India and Pakistan reached a ceasefire after a rapid escalation in a military conflict between them, key differences between their battlefield claims remain unresolved.

Among them is Pakistan’s assertion that it shot down five Indian fighter jets on May 7, the first day of fighting, in response to Indian attacks on its territory.

As a battle of narratives takes over from the actual fighting, Al Jazeera takes stock of what we know about that claim, and why, if true, it matters.

What happened?

Tensions between India and Pakistan erupted into military confrontation on May 7 after India bombed nine sites across six cities in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India said it had struck what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in response to the deadly April 22 killings of tourists by suspected rebels in India-administered Kashmir.

Gunmen on April 22 shot dead 25 male tourists and a local pony rider in the picturesque meadows of Pahalgam, triggering outrage and calls for revenge in India. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for supporting the fighters responsible for the attack, a charge Islamabad denied.

Pakistan said Indian forces on May 7 struck two cities in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and four sites in the country’s largest province, Punjab. It said civilians were killed in the attacks. India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh rejected the Pakistani claims, reiterating that Indian forces “struck only those who harmed our innocents”.

Over the next four days, the two nuclear-armed neighbours were engaged in tit-for-tat strikes on each other’s airbases, while unleashing drones into each other’s territories.

Amid fears of a nuclear exchange, top officials from the United States made calls to Indian and Pakistani officials to end the conflict.

On May 10, US President Donald Trump announced that Washington had successfully mediated a ceasefire between the nuclear-armed neighbours. Despite initial accusations of violations by both sides, the ceasefire has continued to hold so far.

Pakistan reported on Tuesday that Indian strikes killed at least 51 people, including 11 soldiers and several children, while India has said at least five military personnel and 16 civilians died.

What has Pakistan claimed?

Speaking to Al Jazeera shortly after the May 7 attacks, Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said Islamabad, in retaliation, had shot down five Indian jets, a drone, and many quadcopters.

Later in the day, Pakistan’s military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said the warplanes had all been downed inside Indian territory, and aircraft from neither side crossed into the other’s territory during the attacks – an assertion India seconded.

“Neither India nor Pakistan had any need to send their own aircraft out of their own national airspace,” British defence analyst Michael Clarke told Al Jazeera.

“Their standoff weapons all had long enough ranges to reach their evident targets whilst flying in their own airspace,” Clarke, who is a visiting professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London, added.

On Friday, Pakistan’s Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb Ahmed claimed that among the five downed aircraft were three Rafales, a MiG-29, and an Su-30, providing electronic signatures of the aircraft, in addition to the exact locations where the planes were hit.

The battle between Pakistani and Indian jets lasted for just over an hour, Ahmed, who is also the deputy chief of operations, told reporters.

He stated that the confrontation featured at least 60 Indian aircraft, among them 14 French-made Rafales, while Pakistan deployed 42 “hi-tech aircraft,” including American F-16s and Chinese JF-17s and J-10s.

What has been India’s response?

After Chinese state news outlet The Global Times wrote that Pakistan had brought down Indian fighter planes, India’s embassy in China described the report as “disinformation”.

However, beyond that, New Delhi has not formally confirmed or denied the reports.

Asked specifically whether Pakistan had managed to down Indian jets, India’s Director General of Air Operations AK Bharti avoided a direct answer.

“We are in a combat scenario and losses are a part of it,” he said. “As for details, at this time I would not like to comment on that as we are still in combat and give advantage to the adversary. All our pilots are back home.”

What else do we know?

Beyond the official accounts, local and international media outlets have reported different versions of Pakistan’s claims of downing the jets.

According to Indian security sources who spoke to Al Jazeera, three fighter jets crashed inside India-controlled territory.

They did not confirm which country the warplanes belonged to. However, with neither side suggesting that Pakistani planes crossed into Indian airspace, any debris in Indian-controlled territory likely comes from an Indian plane.

Reuters news agency also reported, citing four government sources in Indian-administered Kashmir, that three fighter jets crashed in the region. Reports in CNN said that at least two jets crashed, while a French source told the US outlet that at least one Rafale jet had been shot down.

Photos taken by AP news agency photo journalists showed debris of an aircraft in the Pulwama district in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Will both sides ever agree on what happened?

Defence analyst Clarke said if India has indeed lost a Rafale, that would certainly be “embarrassing”.

“If it came down inside Indian territory, which must be the case if one was destroyed, then India will want to keep it only as a rumour for as long as possible,” he added.

“India has said that “losses” are inevitable, and that is probably as near as they will get to admitting a specific aircraft loss for a while.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – Four days after a May 10 ceasefire pulled India and Pakistan back from the brink of a full-fledged war following days of rapidly escalating military tensions, a battle of narratives has broken out, with each country claiming “victory” over the other.

The conflict erupted after gunmen killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, on April 22. A little-known armed group, The Resistance Front (TRF), initially claimed responsibility, with India accusing Pakistan of backing it. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised retaliation, even though Pakistan denied any role in the attack.

After a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic measures between the neighbours, tensions exploded militarily. Early on the morning of May 7, India fired missiles at what it described as “terrorist” bases not just in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, but also four sites in Pakistan’s Punjab province.

In the following days, both sides launched killer drone strikes at each other’s territory and blamed one another for initiating the attacks.

Tensions peaked on Saturday when India and Pakistan fired missiles at each other’s military bases. India initially targeted three Pakistani airbases, including one in Rawalpindi, the garrison city which is home to the headquarters of the Pakistan Army, before then launching projectiles at other Pakistani bases. Pakistan’s missiles targeted military installations across the country’s frontier with India and Indian-administered Kashmir, striking at least four facilities.

Then, as the world braced for total war between the nuclear-armed neighbours, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire, which he claimed had been mediated by the United States. Pakistan express gratitude to the US, even as India insisted the decision to halt fighting was made solely by the two neighbours without any third-party intervention.

Since the announcement, both countries have held news conferences, presenting “evidence” of their “achievements”. On Monday, senior military officials in India and Pakistan spoke by phone, pledging to uphold the ceasefire in the coming days.

However, analysts say neither side can truly claim to have emerged from the post-April 22 crisis with a definite upper hand. Instead, they say, both India and Pakistan can claim strategic gains even as they each also suffered losses.

Internationalising Kashmir: Pakistan’s gain

The military standoff last week – like three of the four wars between India and Pakistan – had roots in the two countries’ dispute over the Kashmir region.

Pakistan and India administer different parts of Kashmir, along with China, which governs two narrow strips. India claims all of Kashmir, while Pakistan claims the part India – but not Islamabad’s ally China – administers.

After the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of Bangladesh, New Delhi and Islamabad inked the Simla Agreement, which, among other things, committed them to settling “their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations”.

Since then, India has argued that the Kashmir dispute – and other tensions between the neighbours – can only be settled bilaterally, without third-party intervention. Pakistan, however, has cited United Nations resolutions to call for the global community to play a role in pushing for a solution.

On Sunday, Trump said that the US was ready to help mediate a resolution to the Kashmir dispute. “I will work with you both to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at, concerning Kashmir,” the US president posted on his Truth Social platform.

Walter Ladwig, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, said the latest conflict gave Pakistan a chance to internationalise the Kashmir issue, which had been its longstanding strategic goal.

“Islamabad welcomed mediation from a range of countries, including the US, framing the resulting ceasefire as evidence of the need for external involvement,” Ladwig told Al Jazeera.

By contrast, he said, India had to accept a ceasefire brokered externally, rather than ending the conflict on its own terms.

Sudha Ramachandran, the South Asia editor for The Diplomat magazine, said that Modi’s government in India may have strengthened its nationalist support base through its military operation, though it may have also lost some domestic political points with the ceasefire.

“It was able to score points among its nationalist hawkish support base. But the ceasefire has not gone down well among hardliners,” Ramachandran said.

Highlighting ‘terrorism’: India’s gain

However, analysts also say the spiral in tensions last week, and its trigger in the form of the Pahalgam attack, helped India too.

“Diplomatically, India succeeded in refocusing international attention on Pakistan-based militant groups, renewing calls for Islamabad to take meaningful action,” Ladwig said.

He referred to “the reputational cost [for Pakistan] of once again being associated with militant groups operating from its soil”.

“While Islamabad denied involvement and called for neutral investigations, the burden of proof in international forums increasingly rests on Pakistan to demonstrate proactive counterterrorism efforts,” Ladwig added.

India has long accused Pakistan of financing, training and sheltering armed groups that support the secession of Kashmir from India. Pakistan insists it only provides diplomatic and moral support to Kashmir’s separatist movement.

Planes down may be Pakistan’s gain

India claimed that its strikes on May 7 killed more than 100 “terrorists”. Pakistan said the Indian missiles had hit mosques and residential areas, killing 40 civilians, including children, apart from 11 military personnel.

Islamabad also claimed that it scrambled its fighter planes to respond and had brought down multiple Indian jets.

India has neither confirmed nor denied those claims, but Pakistan’s military has publicly shared details that it says identify the planes that were shot down. French and US officials have confirmed that at least one Rafale and one Russian-made jet were lost by India.

Indian officials have also confirmed to Al Jazeera that at least two planes crashed in Indian-administered territory, but did not clarify which country they belonged to.

With both India and Pakistan agreeing that neither side’s jets had crossed their frontier, the presence of debris from a crashed plane in Indian-administered territory suggests they were likely Indian, say analysts.

The ceasefire coming after that suggests a gain for Pakistan, Asfandyar Mir, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera. “Especially, the downing of the aircraft confirmed by various independent sources. So, it [Pakistan] may see the ceasefire as being better for consolidating that dividend.”

Muhammad Shoaib, an academic and security analyst at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, called India’s strikes against Pakistan a strategic miscalculation. “Their reading of Pakistan’s ability to hit back was flawed,” he said.

Ludwig, however, said it would be a mistake to overstate the significance of any Pakistani successes, such as the possible downing of Indian jets. “These are, at best, symbolic victories. They do not represent a clear or unambiguous military gain,” he said.

Further reach across border may be India’s gain

In many ways, analysts say that the more meaty military accomplishment was India’s.

In addition to Kotli and Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Indian missiles on May 7 also targeted four sites in Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous state and the country’s economic nerve-centre.

Over the next two days, India also fired drones that reached deep inside Pakistani territory, including major Pakistani population centres such as Lahore and Karachi.

And on May 10, Indian missiles hit three Pakistani airbases that were deeper in Pakistan’s Punjab than the Indian bases Pakistan hit that day were in Indian territory.

Simply put, India demonstrated greater reach than Pakistan did. It was the first time since the 1971 war between them that India had managed to hit Punjab.

Launching a military response not just across the Line of Control, the two countries’ de-facto border in Kashmir, but deep into Pakistan had been India’s primary goal, said Ramchandran. And India achieved it.

Ludwig, too, said that India’s success in targeting Punjab represented a serious breach of Pakistan’s defensive posture.

Will the ceasefire hold?

Military officials from both countries who spoke on Monday and agreed to hold the ceasefire also agreed to take immediate steps to reduce their troops’ presence along the borders. A second round of talks is expected within 48 hours.

However, later that day, Indian Prime Minister Modi said that the fighting had merely “paused”.

Still, the Stimson Center’s Mir believes the ceasefire could hold.

“Both sides face constraints and opportunities that have emerged during the course of the last week, which, on balance, make a ceasefire a better outcome for them,” he said.

Ladwig echoed that view, saying the truce reflects mutual interest in de-escalation, even if it does not resolve the tensions that led to the crisis.

“India has significantly changed the rules of the game in this episode. The Indian government seems to have completely dispensed with the game that allows Islamabad and Rawalpindi to claim plausible deniability regarding anti-Indian terrorist groups,” he said.

“What the Pakistani government and military do with groups on its soil would seem to be the key factor in determining how robust the ceasefire will be.”

Quaid-i-Azam University’s Shoaib, who is also a research fellow at George Mason University in the US, emphasised the importance of continued dialogue.

He warned that maintaining peace will depend on security dynamics in both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

Just as India accuses Pakistan of supporting cross-border separatism, Islamabad alleges that New Delhi backs a separatist insurgency in Balochistan, a claim India denies.

“Any subsequent bout of violence has the potential to get bloodier and more widespread,” Shoaib said. “Both sides, going for a war of attrition, could inflict significant damage on urban populations, without gaining anything from the conflict.”

• Bitcoin ETFs have attracted over $40 billion in lifetime inflows, setting a historic record as institutional investors continue pouring money into regulated crypto exposure.
• Standard Chartered’s head of digital assets apologized that their forecast of $120K for Q2 was considerably lower than it should have been.
• Bitcoin Pepe’s presale is gaining serious momentum with its end-of-month launch fast approaching, positioning it as potentially the best crypto to buy now before it brings lightning-fast trading to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The institutional money flooding into Bitcoin right now is absolutely staggering. ETF inflows have just smashed through $40.33 billion, according to Bloomberg data shared by analyst James Seyffart, with May 8th alone setting records for single-day buying.

After yesterdays inflows, the spot Bitcoin ETFs are now at a new high water market for lifetime flows. Currently at $40.33 billion according to Bloomberg data h/t @EricBalchunas pic.twitter.com/0GKPNlmprs

— James Seyffart (@JSeyff) May 9, 2025

Above: Bitcoin ETF inflows are accelerating. Source: James Seyffart from Bloomberg.

Analysts are raising their price targets dramatically. Standard Chartered’s head of digital assets recently admitted to CNBC, “I apologize that my $120k Q2 target may be too low,” adding, “The dominant story for Bitcoin has changed again… It is now all about flows. And flows are coming in many forms.”

What’s most telling about ETF flows is their acceleration. It took nearly a year to reach $35 billion by March, but just two more months to add another $5 billion. That represents serious institutional capital positioning for what many believe will be a historic Bitcoin run.

Asset managers and hedge funds are finally embracing Bitcoin ETFs as their preferred vehicle for gaining exposure, which could lead to a domino effect.

We all know what FOMO is in the retail trading sector, but consider what would happen to crypto if some of the world’s leading financial institutions and sovereign wealth funds start to feel that they’re the ones missing out.

ETF Supercycle creates perfect conditions for Bitcoin infrastructure growth

Bitcoin Pepe: Breaking Bitcoin’s Speed Barrier When It Matters Most

As Bitcoin investment rockets across the retail and institutional sectors, any solution that improves and extends its functionality will attract immense interest. Bitcoin Pepe is hitting the market at exactly the right moment, shattering BTC’s speed limitations.

Bitcoin Pepe works by creating a layer 2 solution on top of Bitcoin—an express lane built above the main highway. When you trade on Bitcoin Pepe, transactions are considerably quicker than on Bitcoin’s congested base layer.

The PEP-20 token standard is central, allowing people to create and trade tokens that are ultimately secured by Bitcoin but don’t suffer from its slow speeds. Transactions are bundled together and processed in batches; the final results are recorded on the main Bitcoin blockchain

Bitcoin Pepe is first focusing on meme trading—fun, viral trending crypto projects. It’s the perfect gateway to adoption for what is fundamentally a strong infrastructural add-on for Bitcoin.

The dev team recently opened up a generous staking program divided across three tiers: a 90-day quick option that still pays 75% APY, a stronger 120-day commitment delivering 250% APY, or the whale-sized 180-day package with its massive 10,000% APY (limited to just 1M tokens—about 0.05% of the total supply). These astronomical yields are designed to build strong community backing during the early stages.

🚨 $BPEP STAKING IS STILL LIVE! 🚨

Get ready to earn big with $BPEP staking! Whether you’re going for the Long Pool with 10,000% APY or the Medium and Small Pools, there are huge rewards waiting for you. 💸

💥 Long Pool: 10,000% APY
💥 Medium Pool: 250% APY
💥 Small Pool: 75%… pic.twitter.com/2cgdrBRyle

— Bitcoin Pepe (@BitcoinPepe_) May 11, 2025

Multiple tier-1 platforms are reportedly fast-tracking BPEP for immediate post-launch trading, creating the potential for explosive price discovery once the token goes live. With less than a month until launch, the current presale prices could soon look like a distant memory—making this final presale phase potentially the last chance to secure tokens before they hit the open market and face unlimited upside.

Among the best cryptos to buy now by a huge margin, Bitcoin Pepe is positioned to capitalize on the growing recognition that Bitcoin needs performance upgrades to match its soaring valuation.

Bitcoin’s ETF Momentum Creates Ideal Backdrop for Layer 2 Breakout

To learn more and to buy Bitcoin Pepe before the launch, check out the official website.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not provide financial advice. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, and the market can be unpredictable. Always perform thorough research before making any cryptocurrency-related decisions.

I had closely followed the genocidal war in Gaza for nine months when an opportunity came around to volunteer as part of a medical mission organised by the United Nations, World Health Organization and the Palestinian American Medical Association.

As a trained nephrologist, a doctor who treats patients with kidney disease, I felt there was a critical need for specialised medical care amid the collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza and the high number of medical specialists who had been killed.

I also felt it was my duty as a Muslim to help the people of Gaza. Islam teaches us that whoever saves one life, it is as if he had saved all of humanity; taking care of others is an act of worship, and standing up against injustice is a moral obligation.

I believe my degrees are not meant to simply hang on the walls of an air-conditioned office or help me drive the nicest car or live in an expensive neighbourhood. They are a testament to the fact that I have taken an oath to dedicate my expertise to the service of humanity, to maintain the utmost respect for human life and to offer my medical knowledge and compassion to those in need.

So on July 16, I departed for Gaza with a few other medics.

We entered the strip through the Karem Abu Salem crossing. We went from observing the prosperity, comfort and wealth of the Israeli side to recoiling at the destruction, devastation and misery of the Palestinian side. We basically saw what apartheid looks like.

On our short trip through southern Gaza to reach our destination in Khan Younis, we saw many buildings bombed, damaged or destroyed. Homes, schools, shops, hospitals, mosques – you name it.

The amount of rubble was sickening. To this day, I can’t unsee the landscapes of destruction I witnessed in Gaza.

We were accommodated in Al-Nasser Hospital because it was too dangerous to stay at any other place. We were welcomed and cared for so much that I felt embarrassed. We were seen as saviours.

I treated patients with kidney problems, worked as a primary care physician and sometimes helped during mass casualty events in the emergency room.

Dialysis requires clean water, sterile supplies, reliable electricity, medications and equipment that must be maintained and replaced – none of which was guaranteed under the Israeli blockade. Each dialysis session was a challenge. Every delay increased the risk of my patients dying. Many of them did die – a fact I struggled to accept, knowing that under normal circumstances, many of them could have been saved and lived normal lives.

I remember the smiling face of one of my patients, Waleed, a young man who suffered from kidney failure caused by early-onset high blood pressure, a condition that, with access to proper treatment, could have been managed appropriately.

Dialysis was Waleed’s lifeline, but he couldn’t get an adequate number of sessions due to the Israeli blockade causing severe shortages of medical supplies. Malnutrition and worsening living conditions only accelerated his decline.

I remember how short of breath he was, his body overloaded with fluid and his blood pressure dangerously high. And yet, every time I saw him, Waleed greeted me with a warm smile, his spirit somehow intact, his mother always by his side. A few months after I left Gaza, Waleed passed away.

Another patient of mine was Hussein, a gentle, kind-hearted, deeply respected man. His children cared for him with love and dignity.

He suffered from severe hypokalaemia and acidosis: His body’s potassium levels were dangerously low, and acid built up to toxic levels. To address his condition, he needed basic medications: potassium supplements and sodium bicarbonate pills.

These were simple, inexpensive, life-saving medicines, and yet, the Israeli blockade did not allow them in. Because he could not find these pills, Hussein was hospitalised multiple times for intravenous potassium supplementation.

Despite his immense suffering, Hussein remained gracious, brave and full of faith. When speaking, he always repeated the phrase Alhamdulillah (praise be to God). He passed away a few weeks ago, I was told.

Waleed and Hussein should be here – smiling, laughing, living happily with their families. Instead, they became casualties of siege and silence. These are two of so many tragic stories I know of and I witnessed. So many beautiful lives that could have been saved were lost.

Despite this grim reality, my colleagues in Gaza continue to do their utmost for their patients.

These are medics who are bruised in every way. They are not only battling the daily struggles of life like all other Palestinians in Gaza but also witnessing daily horrors of headless babies, amputated limbs, fully burned human beings and sometimes the lifeless remains of their own loved ones.

Imagine working with no anaesthesia, limited pain medications, very few antibiotics. Imagine surgeons scrubbing with plain water, children undergoing amputations with no sedation, full-body burns patients’ dressings being changed with no pain relief.

Still these healthcare heroes just keep going.

One of the nurses I worked with, Arafat, made a deep impression on me. He was living in a makeshift shelter with multiple family members. It offered no protection against the elements – the cold winter, the scorching heat or the drenching rain.

He starved – like all other Palestinians in Gaza – losing 15kg (33lb) in nine months. He walked 2km to 3km (1 to 2 miles) every day to work with worn-out sandals, facing the danger of Israeli drones bombing or shooting him in the street.

And yet, the smile never left his face. He took care of more than 280 dialysis patients, treating them with care, attentively listening to their anxious families and uplifting his colleagues with light humour.

I felt so small next to heroes like Arafat. His and his colleagues’ resilience and persistence were unbelievable.

While in Gaza, I had the opportunity to visit Al-Shifa Hospital with a UN delegation. What once was Gaza’s largest and most vital medical centre was reduced to ruins. The hospital that was once a symbol of hope and healing had become a symbol of death and destruction, of the deliberate dismantling of healthcare. It was beyond heartbreaking to see its charred, bombed-out remains.

I stayed in Gaza for 22 days. It was an absolute honour to visit, serve and learn life from the resilient people of Gaza. Their relentless courage and determination will stay with me until I die.

Despite witnessing what I could have never imagined, I did not have the urge to leave. I wanted to stay. Back in the United States, I felt profound guilt that I left behind my colleagues and my patients, that I did not stay, that I did not do enough.

Feeling this constant heartache, I cannot understand the growing number of people who are accustomed to the daily reports of Palestinian deaths and images of torn bodies and starving children.

As human beings and as health workers, we cannot quit on Gaza. We cannot stay silent and passive. We must speak out and act on the devastation of healthcare and attacks on our colleagues in the Gaza Strip.

Already fewer and fewer healthcare workers are being allowed to enter Gaza on medical missions. The current blockade has prevented all medical supplies from going in.

We, as healthcare professionals, must mobilise to demand an immediate lifting of the siege and free access to medical missions. We must not stop volunteering to help the struggling medical teams in Gaza. Such acts of speaking out and volunteering give our colleagues in Gaza the hope and comfort that they have not been abandoned.

Let us not allow Gaza to be just a symbol of destruction. Instead, let it be the example of unbreakable spirit.

Stand, speak and act – so history remembers not just the tragedy but also the triumph of human compassion.

Let us uphold human dignity.

Let us tell Gaza, you are not alone!

Humanity is on your side!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump says that forging formal relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be a “dream”, but he wants the kingdom to do it on its “own time”.

The White House on Tuesday made public a flurry of economic and defence pacts with Saudi Arabia involving hundreds of billions of dollars, but any mention of Israel was conspicuously absent from the announcements.

The so-called “normalisation” drive between Saudi Arabia and Israel dominated his predecessor, Joe Biden’s, approach to the region, but the current US president is shifting focus elsewhere, analysts say.

“The Trump administration has made it clear they are willing to move forward on key agreements with Saudi Arabia without the previous condition of Saudi-Israel normalisation,” said Anna Jacobs, a non-resident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute, a think tank.

“This probably reflects growing frustration in the Trump administration with Israeli military action across the region, especially in Gaza.”

‘Time is not right’

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute, also said that Trump has realised that with the ongoing war in Gaza and Israel’s refusal to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state, the “time is not right” for a Saudi Arabia-Israeli pact despite Biden’s emphasis on brokering a deal.

“I think the White House has finally acknowledged that a normalisation agreement at this time is not possible,” Coates Ulrichsen told Al Jazeera.

During his first term, Trump managed to broker the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, which established formal relations with the US ally independently of the Palestinian issue.

However, the agreements were unsuccessful in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as evidenced by the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023.

But even before the war started, Israel had been intensifying its military raids against Palestinians and expanding illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, further dimming the prospects of a two-state solution to the conflict.

Despite the agreements’ apparent shortcomings, Biden made adding Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords a focal point of his Middle East agenda, and US officials said they worked on securing a deal up until the final days of the administration, even as the war on Gaza was raging.

Biden has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that Hamas launched its October 7 attack against Israel in 2023 to thwart an agreement between the Saudis and Israelis.

Still, a day before he left office, Biden boasted that his Middle East policies created an opportunity for “the future of normalisation and integration of Israel with all its Arab neighbours, including Saudi Arabia”.

‘Off the table’

US officials and media reports said that Biden’s deal, which never materialised, would have brought a security pact between Riyadh and Washington and provided US help for Saudi Arabia to establish a civil nuclear programme in exchange for normalisation with Israel.

A major sticking point in that push has been the widely stated Saudi Arabian support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions recognition of Israel on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has categorically rejected the “land for peace” framework, pushing instead for deals with Arab countries that bypass Palestinians.

“This Israeli government won’t even provide lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, making it pretty impossible for Saudi Arabia to seriously consider moving forward with normalisation,” said Jacobs from the Arab Gulf States Institute.

“The Trump administration seems to have understood that it’s off the table, at least for now.”

In Riyadh, Trump announced an agreement to deepen security cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

The $142bn deal will provide Saudi Arabia with “state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services” from US firms, the White House said.

It also includes “extensive training and support to build the capacity of the Saudi armed forces, including enhancement of Saudi service academies and military medical services”, it added.

While the weapons and training deals fall short of a NATO-like mutual defence pact, which may have been included as part of an accord with Israel, they take a bite from the US-backed carrots offered to the kingdom for normalisation, experts say.

“The announcements today do further deepen the links between Saudi and US security and defence interests,” Coates Ulrichsen said.

US-Israel rift?

Trump’s visit to the region comes as Israel has promised to not just continue, but expand, its devastating war on Gaza, which has killed more than 52,900 Palestinians, according to health authorities.

Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, noted that Riyadh has described Israeli atrocities in Gaza as a “genocide”.

“The Saudis are not mincing their words; they are not holding back,” Elgindy told Al Jazeera. “They can’t now move toward normalisation with Israel after accusing Israel of genocide. That would just be ridiculous.”

After his trip to Saudi Arabia, Trump will head to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as part of the first planned foreign trips of his presidency, since attending Pope Francis’s funeral last month. Israel is not on the itinerary.

For Coates Ulrichsen and others, Trump’s apparent snub of Israel reflects unease in the US-Israeli alliance.

“It may be a signal that the White House sees much more value in deepening commercial and strategic relationships with the Gulf states at the moment, given that Israel remains mired in conflict,” Coates Ulrichsen told Al Jazeera.

Israel excluded

Tensions between the Trump administration and Netanyahu’s government have become more apparent in recent weeks despite the US’s military and diplomatic backing of Israel.

Trump confirmed talks with Iran over its nuclear programme during Netanyahu’s visit to the White House, despite the Israeli leader’s opposition to negotiations with Tehran.

Last week, the US president also declared a ceasefire with the Houthis. The deal did not demand an end to the Yemeni group’s attacks against Israel.

As Trump spoke in Riyadh on Tuesday, the Houthis fired another missile at Israel – part of a campaign they say aims to pressure an end to the war on Gaza.

The Trump administration also worked with mediators in Qatar and Egypt to secure the release of US citizen Edan Alexander, who served in the Israeli military and was captured by Hamas during the October 7 attack on Israel. According to Israeli media reports, Israel was excluded from those talks.

Different visions

Elgindy from Georgetown University said the apparent tensions are more than a “bump in the road”, but their impact on the US-Israeli relationship remains to be seen.

“Trump is making clear in word and deed that US and Israeli interests are not one and the same,” he said. “And that’s very significant because Biden didn’t do that.”

For now, Trump remains committed to US military aid to Israel even as it intensifies its bombardment and starvation campaign in Gaza.

And the US president has pushed on with his crackdown on critics of Israel at home, especially on college campuses.

Still, experts say that by skipping Israel during his Middle East trip and de-prioritising normalisation, Trump is pushing forward in pursuit of his own vision for the region.

On Tuesday, Trump lauded Gulf leaders whom he said are building a Middle East “where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together – not bombing each other out of existence”.

That future seems at odds with what Israel appears to be seeking: asserting hegemony over the region with long-term bombing campaigns, including in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

“A very strong signal is being sent that a stable, prosperous Middle East – represented, in the administration’s views, by the Gulf states – is a much more desirable outcome than maybe the Israeli view of the Middle East at the moment, which is one of seemingly escalating a forever conflict,” said Coates Ulrichsen.

At midnight on 6th April 2025, Indian forces launched attacks on multiple locations in Pakistan, including Shakargarh, Sialkot, Muridke, Bahawalpur, Kotli, and the Muzaffarabad area of Punjab and the Pakistani part of Kashmir, using standoff precision-guided munitions. The attacks occurred in the Muslims’ religious places, hydropower infrastructure, and commercial air routes, violating international law and human norms alike, and so far 26 civilian deaths have been reported. India has also challenged Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and violated the international border in the darkness of night. India and Pakistan are the archrival two nuclear weapons states of the South Asia region. However, India’s attack indicates the aggressive posture of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s regime to target the unarmed civilian and innocent children. This is not merely a border skirmish; it is a calculated escalation with far-reaching strategic consequences for the entire South Asian region. Various media reports highlighted that in retaliation and for the defense of the state, Pakistani armed forces also hit all of the Indian fighter jets and drones from their own territory with PL-15.

The tension between India and Pakistan escalated when, on April 22, 2025, terror shattered the peace of Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, a scenic hill station in Indian-administered Kashmir (IOJK) known as “Mini Switzerland.” Armed gunmen opened fire on civilians, resulting in 26 casualties. Instead of allowing a transparent investigation to determine the perpetrators, India hastily blamed Pakistan, offering no concrete evidence to back its claim. It was India’s security failure; before putting the finger on Pakistan, India needs to have a neutral investigation of the incident and should provide evidence of linkages of the Pakistani state to these attacks. However, India’s recent attack on Pakistan’s territory and targeting civilian population indicates that the Pahalgam attack was an orchestrated provocation. India, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, launched this attack not in defense but for political theater—under the cover of night, on civilian infrastructure, without evidence or provocation. This isn’t an act of strength—it’s a display of desperation. And if this escalates, it won’t just make headlines; it will be etched in history as the moment ego led us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.

Pakistan has concluded the meeting of the National Security Committee under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and it has been decided that in consonance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty. The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard. India’s missile strikes inside Pakistan were reckless, unprovoked, and a clear violation of international law. India’s recent attacks have put the peace and stability of the entire South Asian region in serious jeopardy. At the moment the strikes occurred, 57 international commercial flights, including those operated by major Gulf and European airlines, were either within or approaching Pakistani airspace. This reckless action posed a direct danger to civilian air traffic, placing thousands of innocent lives at risk. It goes beyond a hostile move against Pakistan; it represents a clear threat to global peace and security. By heightening tensions in a nuclear-armed region, India has shown a disturbing disregard for international laws, aviation safety, and the value of human life.

By targeting civilian airspace and deliberately provoking conflict, India has revealed itself as a reckless and irresponsible actor on the global stage. Its actions undermine regional stability and pose a serious threat to international peace. The international community must look beyond India’s carefully crafted narratives and recognize the true source of aggression. This is a defining moment for global powers to uphold justice, demand accountability, and prevent further escalation. Without decisive diplomatic intervention, India’s adventurism could plunge South Asia and potentially the wider world into a dangerous and prolonged conflict. Several nations have already voiced serious concerns; Azerbaijan condemned the military strikes on Pakistan and urged restraint and dialogue; Turkey, through Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, expressed strong solidarity with Pakistan against India’s unprovoked aggression; and China described India’s military action as “regrettable,” calling for de-escalation and expressing concern over the unfolding situation.

To prevent the escalation between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, the international community must play a role to bring them to the negotiation table. Both states need an immediate ceasefire to avoid civilian deaths and triggering nuclear risks; they must also halt the cross-border military activities and refrain from provocative statements. There is also an immediate need to establish a neutral and impartial investigation mechanism under the supervision of the United Nations to determine the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. There must be restoration of military-to-military and diplomatic communication channels for conflict management. Moreover, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the UN Secretary-General must actively intervene by appointing a special envoy to mediate between the two sides. Key international actors such as China, Turkey, the United States, the EU, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should support de-escalation through diplomatic engagement and pressure for dialogue. Track two diplomacy is vital in the time of crisis and addresses the root cause of the internationally recognized disputed territory of Kashmir in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of Kashmiri people by granting them the right of self-determination.

Last but not least, both states need to realize that war is not the only solution, but it is a diplomatic failure to de-escalate the tension in the South Asian region. In a nuclearized region of South Asia, its consequences would be catastrophic not only for India and Pakistan but also for regional and global security. The world cannot afford another conflict zone. The international community must rise to the occasion, play an impartial mediating role, and help both nations choose peace over provocation and dialogue over destruction.

United Nations agencies are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, with the United States abruptly pulling aid, European contributions shrinking, and global budgets shifting to defence. Deep cuts, mass layoffs and sweeping reforms are under way, jeopardising food, shelter and other aid for millions around the world. How can the UN adapt to survive?

The world’s two biggest economies have stepped back from the brink.

After imposing retaliatory tariff hikes at rates never seen before, the United States and China have agreed to a truce.

US taxes on Chinese goods will now fall from 145 percent to 30 percent, and China will cut theirs on US items from 125 percent to 10 percent.

Some of the levies have been scrapped altogether while others have been put on hold.

After weeks of considerable strain, many people are looking to see how global supply chains will be affected.

Is it the end of the global trade war, triggered last month by US President Donald Trump?

And what does it mean for those countries who had been anticipating big investments due to the steep duties on China?

Presenter: Elizabeth Puranam

Guests:

William Lee, chief economist, Milken Institute

Huiyao Wang, founder, Center for China and Globalization

Jayant Menon, former lead economist, Asian Development Bank

PA Media

‘I know where I stand’

Lineker hitting headlines

She was just seven years old when they were displaced by the Boko Haram insurgency in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria. Elizabeth Bitrus and her family fled to Taraba State, where they lived in an internally displaced persons (IDP) Camp. That was the first time Elizabeth had to adjust to a home that was not her home. 

Three years later, she and her aunt boarded a bus bound for Edo State, South South Nigeria, where her aunt resides. 

No one told Elizabeth Bitrus exactly where she was headed, but she knew it meant a fresh start, a chance to return to school, and she could hardly contain her excitement. She had dropped out after displacement upended her life. Elizabeth was only ten. Her aunt had told her stories of what it was like living there and how children attend a free school, with provisions for food, books, and even toiletries. 

They eventually arrived at Uhogua, a rural community in Edo State. Their destination was the Home for the Needy Camp, a sprawling compound dotted with blocks of buildings roofed with rusted zinc sheets. When they arrived, her aunt dropped her off at the camp and said she was leaving. Her house was a few minutes away, but students lived in a boarding school arrangement.

Founded in 1992 by Solomon Folorunsho, a Nigerian pastor, the camp provides free accommodation, feeding, and education for displaced people. It currently houses over 4000 people. 

“I thought I would be living with my aunt while attending the school,” Elizabeth recalls with a chuckle. “I started crying profusely. I immediately started to miss my mum and told my aunt to take me back home.”

The memory is still fresh in her mind. She can laugh about it now in hindsight, but at the time, it was terrifying. She didn’t know anyone. How would she fit in?

“I didn’t find it very hard to fit in, thankfully. There was a group of girls who were eager to make friends with me, the new girl. When I kept crying, saying I wanted to leave, they advised me to be patient and stay to study,” Elizabeth said. 

Slowly, she grew accustomed to the routine of the camp. 

“Soon enough, I started to enjoy being in the camp, so much that I didn’t even care about going back home anymore,” she recounted. 

‘Home for the needy’

Over three decades ago, Solomon started caring for children in Edo who were abandoned by their parents and those out of school. 

“I rented an apartment and put them in a private school. These children became wonderful. I saw how they were competing [with other students], which encouraged me. That is how I started,” he said.  

The capacity grew from a one-bedroom apartment to a three-bedroom apartment, then a seven-bedroom apartment. But with more children came greater responsibilities and shrinking resources. Solomon could not manage alone anymore. He began seeking donations from individuals and organisations, and when the children’s school fees became exorbitant, he started a school, employed teachers and got volunteers to run it. 

When the Boko Haram insurgency began, “friends from the north were calling me. This was around 2012. I thought about what we could do for the children, and gradually some families started coming here,” Solomon tells HumAngle. Elizabeth was one of them. 

They live in large tents, each housing up to 50 students. They sleep on mats and attend prayers every morning, before heading to classes in modern brick-walled classrooms. Oddly, however, only the teenage girls were required to cook. They did so in groups, taking turns according to a schedule. Then they shared the food with everyone, both the girls and the boys. 

After dinner, they’d form study groups. Some would do their assignments, others would study for tests. If one didn’t have a torch to read with, they’d go under the tall solar-powered streetlights in the camp’s compound. 

The longing for home

Elizabeth often thought about her mom and three siblings in the early days. 

She never once spoke to her mother for seven years at the camp. She discovered that she had cousins in the camp, and one day, as they chatted with their mom over the phone, Elizabeth heard her mother’s voice. She spoke with her briefly, and a sudden longing for home started to sweep over her. 

“I missed them so much. I knew I needed to go back and see my family,” she recounts.

It had taken a long time to properly reestablish contact with her mom after that brief call on her aunt’s phone in 2021. Her mom didn’t have a phone, so they didn’t speak again until three years later, in 2024. 

Living conditions in the camp were deteriorating: there was hunger, the toilets were full, and some were breaking down. More and more, Elizabeth craved her mother’s embrace. Over the call, she told her mother she wanted to return home, and her mother sent money for transport.

She was excited and nervous the day she was finally leaving Edo for Abuja, North-central Nigeria. It had been nearly a decade since she’d left her family in Taraba, and so much had changed. She is now 18 years old. Her family moved. She wondered how much taller her siblings had grown, whether her mother had aged at all.

“When I saw her waiting for me at the car park after we arrived, I ran into her arms and started sobbing, and sobbing. I couldn’t control it,” Elizabeth recounts with a smile. 

When HumAngle met her at Kuchingoro IDP Camp, an informal settlement in Abuja, where she lives with her mum, Elizabeth was sitting under the shade of a tree. She had just returned from work as a domestic help in a house close to the camp. Across the street, the grand terrace buildings of the estate where Elizabeth sweeps and mops floors stand in sharp contrast to her lowly tent, made out of rusted zinc roof sheets and rags. 

Since she came here, she has not enrolled in school because her mother cannot afford it, and her father is absent. The last time Elizabeth saw him was when they were in Taraba in 2015. He had visited briefly, then left for Lagos. No one has heard from him since.

Elizabeth’s mom, Abigail Bitrus, told HumAngle that her husband had always worked in Lagos and only visited occasionally, even when they lived in Borno. But he has not been in contact with the family since his last visit a decade ago.

“Some of his relatives say he’s alive and well, others say they haven’t heard from him in years. But he and I didn’t fight or anything, and I just wish he’d at least call us,” Abigail explained, tears welling up in her eyes. 

Abigail is 38 years old. She moved to Abuja near her parents, who live in Nasarawa, a neighbouring state. She has lived in the camp for four years, but now faces the threat of eviction. After settling on privately owned property, she and many others were uprooted from their tents, forced to move to a smaller space on another piece of private land. 

Of hope and struggles

Elizabeth wishes to go back to the camp in Benin City. Although it is not her ideal place to live, she gets to study at least. Education is crucial to her, and she has lofty dreams, but is not allowed to return to the camp. 

“I’m now in SS2. I want to graduate and go to university to study medicine. I want to graduate as the best student and get a scholarship to study abroad, like one of my seniors, who is now in the United States,” Elizabeth said. 

Solomon told HumAngle that over 300 students have proceeded to university after graduating from the camp. They studied courses ranging from engineering to medicine and nursing. One student emerged as the best graduating student in his class at Edo State University and later secured a scholarship to the University of Illinois, Chicago.

He said the decision to stop students like Elizabeth from returning to the camp after leaving depends on each family’s situation and financial need.

“​​If you have a home and can afford transport to Abuja or Maiduguri, then you can stay at home, because we want to help those in need… if your father or mother has a house, at least let us give that chance to someone else,” Solomon explains.

Solomon tells HumAngle that donations and aid were consistent in the early days. However, that is no longer the case. Solomon has been appealing to individuals, organisations, and the government to bring more support, but the response has been slow. Globally, humanitarian aid has shrunk. 

The cost of paying teachers became unsustainable, forcing the employed staff to leave. The camp now relies on volunteers and former students to keep the school running. Even feeding the children has become a struggle.

“Food is at a critical level right now,” he says. “We’re struggling to feed the children just once a day. Some of those in university aren’t allowed to write exams because they haven’t paid the fees. We really need support at this time.”

Solomon says he usually pays to harvest from farms in neighbouring villages when food runs out. But it is not nearly enough to meet nutritional needs or satisfy the children. 

Displacement doesn’t just uproot homes—it disrupts education. Over 4.6 million children have been affected by the conflict in northeast Nigeria, according to UNICEF, and 56 per cent of displaced children in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe are still out of school. Initiatives like Home for the Needy attempt to fill that gap, but without sustained support, many children like Elizabeth risk being left behind.

They are left waiting, left in search of home, education, and the hope for a better future.

Elizabeth still dreams of becoming a doctor. She believes her story doesn’t end in her mother’s arms in Abuja, nor does it find resolution in the dusty tents of Edo. She is a brilliant dreamer and believes in the possibility of more. 

Pakistan reiterates its commitment to the ceasefire but warns it will respond forcefully to any future Indian attacks.

India has ordered a Pakistani diplomat to leave the country within 24 hours as tensions simmer in the wake of heavy military exchanges between the nuclear-armed neighbours before a ceasefire was agreed last week.

The unnamed official, stationed at Pakistan’s embassy in New Delhi, was accused by India’s Ministry of External Affairs on Tuesday of “indulging in activities not in keeping with his official status”.

The move comes after a brief but intense military confrontation last week that threatened to erupt into the fifth full-scale war between the two countries. While the truce brought a temporary halt to cross-border missile and drone strikes, sporadic skirmishes continue along the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border  in disputed Kashmir, a region claimed by both nations.

On Tuesday, Pakistan reiterated its commitment to the ceasefire but warned it would respond forcefully to any future attacks.

The statement came after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned in his first national address since the truce that India would strike “terrorist hideouts” across the border if provoked again.

The ultranationalist Hindu leader added that India “only paused” its military action against Pakistan.

Modi’s remarks were swiftly condemned by Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which called them “provocative and inflammatory”.

“At a time when international efforts are being made for regional peace and stability, this statement represents a dangerous escalation,” it said.

“Pakistan remains committed to the recent ceasefire understanding and taking necessary steps towards de-escalation and regional stability,” the statement continued, adding that any future aggression would receive a response.

The conflict ignited after a deadly April 22 shooting attack in the Pahalgam area of India-administered Kashmir, where 25 Indian tourists and one Nepalese visitor were killed. India accused Pakistan’s government of links to the attacks – an accusation Islamabad strongly denied.

India launched strikes on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

According to Islamabad, 40 civilians and 11 Pakistani military personnel were killed in last week’s violence. India said at least 16 civilians and five Indian soldiers were killed.

The fighting marked the most severe exchange between the two countries in nearly 30 years and ended only after sustained diplomatic pressure. On Monday, India said it held a rare phone call with Pakistan’s military leaders, agreeing to uphold the ceasefire and explore ways to de-escalate the conflict.

Fragile ceasefire

Despite the ceasefire, sporadic violence continued on Tuesday with Indian forces reporting a gun battle in southern Kashmir’s Shopian district. The army said three suspected fighters were killed in a “search and destroy” operation launched on intelligence input.

On Tuesday, Modi visited Adampur airbase near the border and reiterated India’s stance in a speech to air force personnel. “We will not differentiate between the government sponsoring terrorism and the masterminds of terrorism,” he said.

“We will enter their dens and hit them without giving them an opportunity to survive.”

Meanwhile, both sides have taken a series of retaliatory diplomatic and economic measures.

India has suspended most visa services for Pakistani nationals, halted bilateral trade and announced its intention to unilaterally suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, a World Bank-brokered water-sharing agreement in place since 1960 that is critical for farming.

In response, Pakistan banned visas for Indians, closed its airspace to Indian aircraft and imposed a reciprocal trade embargo.

Are Islamophobic crimes less likely to be classed as terrorism offences? The murder of 22-year-old Aboubakar Cisse at a French mosque should be investigated by anti-terror police, according to the lawyer representing the victim’s family. He spoke to Al Jazeera’s Hind Touissate.

Israel’s ‘template for genocide’ is being used in Sudan, according to international law expert Luigi Daniele, who says the paramilitary RSF is using carefully chosen terminology to whitewash killing civilians.

PA Media

‘Evidence review’

‘Moral probity’

Authors: Darynaufal Mulyaman and Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani*

In June 2025, South Korea will prepare to hold elections, and there is a figure who is in the political spotlight, namely Lee Jae-myung. He is the leading candidate of the Democratic Party in South Korea and represents a new direction of pragmatic progressivism based on the socio-economic reality of society and not an idealistic and rhetorical one. His views on inter-Korean relations, foreign policy, and his approach to the United States and China reflect an effort to balance national identity with geopolitical realities. If you look back at history, in the history of politics in South Korea, there are two big names that show or define progressivism, namely Kim Dae-jung and Moon Jae-in.

Both figures have left a legacy through diplomacy and careful engagement with North Korea. However, Lee Jae-myung comes with a different approach; he still brings the spirit of peace, but the style he carries is a more populist, more grounded style, and his commitment to inter-Korean peace has not diminished. With the presence of Lee Jae-myung as a candidate, it signals a return to building engagement with North Korea. Lee Jae-myung offers more policies, such as conditional sanctions relief, which is linked to verifiable denuclearization, where sanctions will be eased if North Korea shows real and verified steps in the denuclearization process. What Lee Jae-myung is doing is completely different from Kim Dae-jung’s “Sunshine Policy,” which is more based on trust and reconciliation without harsh conditions.

At the same time, however, his economic initiatives, such as reviving joint tourism projects, show continuity with the Moon Jae-in era with thawed relations and cultural diplomacy. Economic projects such as joint tourism, cultural exchange, and cross-border cooperation still remain part of Lee Jae-myung’s vision. He believes that economic stability and social interaction can be a stepping stone to broader peace. However, what sets Lee Jae-myung apart is his distinctive voice in the broader geopolitical discourse and the most prominent aspect of Lee Jae-myung’s foreign policy, namely his vision to make South Korea a strategically autonomous country.

He argued that South Korea should not choose between Washington and Beijing. In a world that is now polarized between the United States and China, Lee Jae-myung offers a pragmatic, non-aligned approach, not as a passive neutral, but as an active position to balance South Korea’s national interests amid the pressures of the world’s two major powers. This is a bold vision because instead of choosing one of the camps to approach, Lee Jae-myung is pushing for policies that can better allow South Korea to maintain close relations with the United States, especially in the defense-security fields, such as through military alliances and defense system development. And at the same time, it continues to establish relations and economic cooperation with China, which is South Korea’s main trading partner. So this is a bold vision because it recognizes the strategic needs of the U.S. alliance and the gravity of China’s economy.

This approach is very different from conservative governments that are more inclined towards the United States as a whole or even from previous liberal strategies that were sometimes too soft on China. In Lee Jae-myung’s vision, diplomacy is a tool to maintain sovereignty in decisions and not a tool to fully conform to the will of foreign powers. In the midst of new tensions and a global realignment, Lee Jae-myung’s candidacy provides him with a sobering reminder that diplomacy works best not when chasing headlines, but when building trust done slowly. With this approach, Lee can also strengthen South Korea’s position at the regional level, especially through East Asia initiatives that encourage collaboration between countries on energy, technology, and climate change issues. In terms of rich communication, when compared to Moon Jae-in, who tends to be calm and diplomatic, Lee Jae-myung has a more aggressive and approachable communication style than Moon Jae-in. Then, compared to Kim Dae-jung, Lee Jae-myung is more grounded in working-class reality than Kim Dae-jung. Although their communication styles are different, their ambition to bring peace and dignity to the Korean Peninsula is clearly in line with theirs.

Although the style and approach brought are new, the ambition is seen in line with Lee Jae-myung, who does not necessarily reject the legacy of his predecessors to create peace on the Korean peninsula. From Kim Dae-jung, he has inherited the spirit of peace and the recognition that the problems facing Korea cannot be solved by violence. And through Moon Jae-in, Lee Jae-myung continues his efforts to include elements of cultural engagement and economic diplomacy as a tool to build greater trust.

Lee Jae-myung has realized that the South Korean people today are no longer satisfied with symbolism in politics. The South Korean people want real results, both in domestic affairs and foreign relations, especially between the Koreas. Therefore, Lee Jae-myung learns from their weaknesses. The idealism that exists in Kim Dae-jung is often used by North Korea without good faith to repay trust. And Moon Jae-in’s approach, which tends to be too diplomatic, is often criticized for being too slow and not pressuring the opponent enough. So, seeing from this, Lee Jae-myung is more of an approach that can be evaluated and measured, such as verified denuclearization, cross-border economic projects with success indicators, and diplomacy that is open but full of calculations. Therefore, his vision is not idealism, but a steady and deliberate movement towards peace.

Amid the ongoing turmoil and tensions on the Korean peninsula, the trade war between the two great powers, and the rising nationalism in many countries, the presence of figures such as Lee Jae-myung provides a more grounded alternative. Lee Jae-myung is not an idealistic hero but a technocrat who understands the importance of strategy and public communication; this style has made him beloved by many young voters and the working class. Lee Jae-myung’s vision does not dream of instant peace or dramatic reunification, but Lee offers a peace built gradually through small steps and careful calculations and based on trust that is built and tested consistently.

It is a pragmatic progressivism that sees the reality of what is happening in society and remains faithful to the principle that progress is only possible if the small people become the center of determining the direction of policy. In this context, Lee placed the people at the center to determine the direction of policy and did not place the elites or elite-centric ones who often ignored the needs and voices of ordinary citizens. Because, according to Lee, to achieve peace and especially security, it is not only about weapon systems such as missiles or soldiers but also about jobs in border areas and ensuring price stability for the South Korean people so that with development that leads to the economy, stability will be created.

This is what finally made Lee Jae-myung think about more often voicing policies of wealth redistribution, reducing inequality in society, and protection for vulnerable groups as part of achieving diplomacy and national security strategies. Therefore, pragmatic Progressivism is not trapped by moral rhetoric but is faithful to the principle that progress can be achieved or is possible if the people become the center to determine the direction of policy. And with the pragmatic progressivism carried by Lee Jae-myung, he can bring together the spirit of healthy change with a political vision that is not only ideal but also capable of being implemented in the complex realities that occur in today’s world.

*Abdullah Akbar Rafsanjani is a researcher assistant of CEO Research. Research interests are around security issues and foreign relations.