In July 1776, the Second Continental Congress – a group of leaders from thirteen erstwhile British colonies – adopted the draft of the Declaration of Independence. The draft was the outcome of the collective consciousness of the founding fathers of the American nation, who acknowledged, ‘all men are created equal’. However, since the nation’s latent phases, the American founding ideals are in repeated conflict with the country’s strategic behavior. Founded on the core principles of political and liberal values of ‘…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,’ the nation has experienced the majority years of its existence engaged in war – either declared conflict or military intervention – since its independence. Since 1776, the United States (US) has engaged in over 36 conflicts across the globe, of which the US Congress approved wars only five times. [i] In light of this, the paper posits that while the US was founded on the principles of liberty, human rights and self-determination, its military interventions over the years reflect strategic interests that contradict its founding ideals. This gap between policy rhetoric and policy practice becomes obvious as the US emerged first as a regional power and then as a global hegemon. In light of this, there is a need to probe consistency or deviations between America’s founding values and its policymakers’ actual motivations. Given this, the paper argues why and how the US wars, over decades, contradict its founding ideals. Similarly, the paper explores reasons behind the persistence of such contradictions. [i] “How many wars has the US been in?” War Costs , https://www.warcosts.org/how-many-wars-has-the-us-been-in .
This article studies the challenges to scientific discourse in Pakistan through two cases: the coercion of a Zoology assistant professor in Bannu district to renounce Darwin’s theory of evolution and a podcast discussion critiquing a peer-reviewed article on Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. The Bannu incident illustrates how misunderstandings of the nature of a scientific theory, exacerbated by inadequate translation of scientific terms in local languages, can lead to ideological conflation and coercion. The podcast discussion reveals a lack of fundamental understanding of research evaluation, coupled with a critique undermined by misinterpretations of the theory of ontological security and the use of ad hominem remarks. While these cases are not representative of broader trends in Pakistan, they provide some insights into how scientific dialogue can be constrained by geopolitical, linguistic, and cultural factors. The article argues that such incidents reflect deeper issues, including limited understanding of the nature and function of scientific theories, insufficient public discourse on Islam and philosophy of science, and lack of effort to contextualize scientific ideas within local frameworks of understanding.
The Objectives Resolution, passed in March 1949 by Liaquat Ali Khan, has served as the symbolic core of Pakistan's constitutional journey. Mired by controversy, some argue was undeserved, it has transformed into a provision of substantive constitutional value and authority. From a preambular statement of principles, it has moved to the forefront of legislative discourse and constitutional debate. More importantly, before the courts of Pakistan, it has served as a significant foundation for major judicial decisions of constitutional import. Since 1985 it has gained further importance and significance as it was annexed within the Constitution and inserted through the Eighth Amendment as Article 2A. Its impact has had far-reaching implications since the 1990s, particularly in relation to the justiciability of fundamental rights under Articles 199 and 184(3) of the Constitution. These provisions empower the High Courts and the Supreme Court, respectively, to directly adjudicate matters involving the enforcement of fundamental rights. From Darshan Masih Case to numerous suo moto cases before the courts today, the Objectives Resolution has exerted its profound influence in determining how fundamental rights are perceived and adjudicated. Despite its central role as a constitutional grundnorm, its impact has received insufficient scholarly attention, resulting in a fragmented and often confusing understanding of its significance. This paper seeks to examine the true constitutional importance of the Objectives Resolution, its influence on the jurisprudence of Pakistan's courts, and its continuing relevance to future constitutional debates and developments in Pakistan.
In July 1776, the Second Continental Congress – a group of leaders from thirteen erstwhile British colonies – adopted the draft of the Declaration of Independence. The draft was the outcome of the collective consciousness of the founding fathers of the American nation, who acknowledged, ‘all men are created equal’. However, since the nation’s latent phases, the American founding ideals are in repeated conflict with the country’s strategic behavior. Founded on the core principles of political and liberal values of ‘…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,’ the nation has experienced the majority years of its existence engaged in war – either declared conflict or military intervention – since its independence. Since 1776, the United States (US) has engaged in over 36 conflicts across the globe, of which the US Congress approved wars only five times.[i] In light of this, the paper posits that while the US was founded on the principles of liberty, human rights and self-determination, its military interventions over the years reflect strategic interests that contradict its founding ideals. This gap between policy rhetoric and policy practice becomes obvious as the US emerged first as a regional power and then as a global hegemon. In light of this, there is a need to probe consistency or deviations between America’s founding values and its policymakers’ actual motivations. Given this, the paper argues why and how the US wars, over decades, contradict its founding ideals. Similarly, the paper explores reasons behind the persistence of such contradictions. [i] “How many wars has the US been in?” War Costs, https://www.warcosts.org/how-many-wars-has-the-us-been-in.
This paper examines the Indian naval nuclear modernization through the lens of offensive realism. The scholarship argues that India’s naval nuclearization is driven less by its defense necessity than by its ambitions to be a regional hegemon in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The existing literature discusses various reasons behind India’s pursuit of naval nuclear platforms, including deterrence stability based on Cold War logic that strengthening the second-strike capability discourages the first strike, prestige motives, and bureaucratic rationales. However, this paper posits that the driving reason behind Indian naval nuclearization is its ambition to be a regional hegemon in the IOR. Using qualitative methods and thematic analysis of official documents, strategic discourses, and secondary literature, the paper identifies three recurring patterns in India’s maritime behavior: capability expansion beyond stated minimalism, doctrinal shift towards regional dominance, and regional security rooted in the narrative of a net security provider. It argues that the Indian development of SSBNs, SSNs, and SLBMs, coupled with its LSAs with extra-regional powers, undermines strategic stability in South Asia. The paper finds that India’s growing naval nuclearization increases crisis instability and fuels an arms race in the region. It further observes that Indian naval nuclear posture increases the risk of inadvertent escalation and could transform the region into a theatre of the global Great Game. The paper concludes that Pakistan must devise long- and short-term strategies to restore the balance of power in the region in the evolving maritime strategic environment.
