Offline across borders
On an ordinary April morning, Shehzad Ghias, a Pakistani comedian and political commentator, opened his inbox to a message that would thrust him into the heart of a geopolitical standoff. His YouTube channel, The Pakistan Experience, had been blocked in India. No warning. No context. Just silence, except, of course, from the Indian government, which days earlier had banned 16 Pakistani YouTube channels, including major news outlets like Geo News and ARY, as well as independent creators, for allegedly spreading 'anti-India propaganda' in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians.
Pakistan hit back a few days later, blocking 16 Indian YouTube channels and more than 30 websites. Officials said the move was in response to misinformation, but for most people watching from the sidelines, it felt like a digital tit-for-tat. The impact was immediate. Audiences on both sides suddenly found channels they followed for years, news, commentary, even comedy, just gone. For creators, it was worse. Viewership dropped overnight. So did ad revenue. Some had built their platforms over years, video by video, only to be cut off from a huge part of their audience in a matter of hours. And just like that, another fragile bridge between India and Pakistan, one that the internet had quietly held up, was gone.
What's unfolding now is more than a tech policy spat. It's a chilling glimpse into the future of digital expression in South Asia, where creators risk becoming collateral in state-led campaigns of narrative control, and platforms like YouTube quietly bow to political pressure. As bans tighten and borders extend into cyberspace, the open web promised to this region is beginning to splinter, one takedown at a time.
The ban explained
The Indian government didn't hold back. Days after the April 22 terror attack, India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a sweeping order. Sixteen Pakistani YouTube channels were to be blocked across Indian territory. The official reasoning? The channels were accused of spreading 'fake news, anti-India propaganda, and content detrimental to national security.' It wasn't the first time India had pulled the plug on cross-border content, but it was, by far, the most high-profile.
Among the banned were some of Pakistan's biggest names in mainstream media. Geo News, ARY News, Samaa TV, GNN and Dawn News all made the list. But it wasn't just the news giants. Individual creators and digital-first platforms were targeted too. The list included Shoaib Akhtar's cricket channel, the political podcast 'The Pakistan Experience', satire-driven commentary from CBA (Comics by Arslan), and a few lesser-known but fast-growing digital voices. The move sent a clear signal — no channel was too big or too niche to be blocked.
India's stance was firm. The content in question, authorities said, was harmful to public order and had the potential to incite communal unrest. Much of it, they claimed, painted a distorted picture of events in Kashmir, India's internal security situation, and foreign policy. While India's information ministry didn't go into the specifics of each channel's alleged violations, the language used left little room for interpretation. In their view, these channels were a threat, digitally armed with narratives that didn't align with New Delhi's version of events.
This wasn't new territory for India. Back in 2022, the government blocked 35 Pakistan-based YouTube channels in one go. The reasoning then was similar, misinformation, threats to sovereignty, and manipulation of Indian audiences. At the time, many of the channels had relatively small followings. This time, though, the stakes were much higher. Several of the blocked channels had large Indian audiences, some reaching into the millions. Their removal wasn't just symbolic, it disrupted an entire ecosystem of regional storytelling, commentary and online exchange.
For the creators, the ban came like a rug pulled out from under them. There was no advance notice, no strike warnings, no appeals process. One day they were live across South Asia, the next day they were gone from India's digital landscape. Traffic dropped instantly. Monetization took a hit, especially for those who relied on Indian ad impressions. Even audience interaction slowed down as viewers from across the border vanished overnight.
Some creators, like Shehzad Ghias, took it in stride, with sarcasm, frustration, and a touch of resignation. Others, particularly in the news industry, saw it as part of a broader trend where governments are increasingly controlling who gets to speak and who gets to listen. There's also a growing sense that platforms like YouTube are walking a fine line. While they technically follow local laws, they're rarely transparent about how takedown requests are handled or whether content actually violates their community standards.
What's clear is that the aftermath of this ban isn't just about numbers or lost views. It's about silencing voices that were already working on the margins. It's about cutting off one of the last few spaces where Indians and Pakistanis could hear each other without filters, anchors or agendas. And in the current climate, that silence speaks volumes.
Voices from the shadows
For Ghias, the news came via email. A short note from YouTube telling him that his podcast, The Pakistan Experience, had been blocked in India. He read it, laughed out loud, and shook his head. 'I never thought I'd be banned by the Indian government before the Pakistani one,' he said while laughing. 'It was even more amusing to see the initial list of 16 banned channels, it had Pakistan's mainstream news channels along with our little podcast channel.'
But once the joke faded, the reality set in. About 30 percent of his audience came from India. That's a big chunk. 'I am guessing we will not lose most of them, they will still watch using VPNs,' he added. But that connection, being accessible without any barriers, is now gone.
The ban hit more than just numbers. Creators like Shehzad aren't just chasing views. They're building communities, trying to create space for honest, critical conversations, something mainstream platforms often avoid. When a country as big as India cuts off that access, it narrows the conversation. 'If the truth is a threat to someone,' he said, 'then the problem lies with them.'
To Shehzad, this wasn't about national security. It was censorship, clear and simple. 'Calling our channel a national security risk for India is nothing short of a joke,' he said.
That's the part that stings for many creators - the silencing. For years, YouTube had allowed a space, however messy or unpredictable, for cross-border engagement. Pakistanis and Indians argued, laughed, agreed, disagreed, but they listened to each other. Now that space is shrinking.
Shehzad believes this isn't going to stop political commentary. 'Commentators in Pakistan make videos with the ever-looming threat of a Black Vigo, a ban in India is unlikely to deter them.' But he admits the message is loud and clear. 'Repression is used around the world to silence critical voices, and to signal to others to fall in line, those who truly believe in what they say continue on despite the hurdles.'
The ban has also exposed the double standards of global platforms. Shehzad doesn't expect YouTube to fight back. 'Big tech will always follow the money,' he said. 'To expect YouTube to side with the freedoms of a few content creators of the might of the Indian Economy is naive in my opinion.' According to him, platforms have made peace with the idea that they'll say one thing about freedom of expression and do another when a government comes knocking.
Still, what hurts more than the algorithm or the analytics is the sense of being cut off. 'The jingoism that you now see on mainstream Indian news shows why the Indian Government might have severed their population from critical voices from Pakistan,' Shehzad said. 'If Indian audiences were exposed to what we were saying they might be less likely to believe in every piece of propaganda put forward by the far-right Indian media.'
He isn't alone in that thinking. Many digital creators in Pakistan believe that while politicians build fences, they had been quietly breaking them, through stories, podcasts, comedy, cricket banter. Now it feels like the internet itself is being carved up into territories.
Shehzad isn't changing his content. He won't soften his tone. But the ban has forced him, and others, to rethink what it means to operate in a region where one takedown can wipe out years of work.
Cross-border digital tensions
While creators like Shehzad are directly impacted by the ban, the ripple effects go far beyond subscriber counts and video views. The situation points to a much larger problem, one that has to do with how states are trying to redraw borders on the internet, and how tech platforms are quietly letting it happen.
Asad Baig, Executive Director and founder of Media Matters for Democracy (MMfD), has been watching this space for years. For him, India's move to block 16 Pakistani YouTube channels isn't just another policy decision. It's something deeper.
'India is setting a deeply problematic precedent by using regulatory powers to silence cross-border speech,' he said. 'These actions represent a shift from democratic digital governance to a securitised model of internet control. Blocking entire channels suggests an unwillingness to engage with pluralistic discourse. This doesn't just harm creators in Pakistan; it restricts Indian audiences from accessing diverse regional perspectives, especially around conflict and diplomacy.'
According to Baig, this doesn't only hurt Pakistani creators, it affects Indian audiences too. By cutting off these channels, India is creating 'an act of information isolation, not protection.' It limits the kinds of perspectives Indian viewers are exposed to, especially on issues like Kashmir, foreign policy, and diplomacy.
This approach, he added, shows an unwillingness to engage with pluralistic discourse. And it's not just about governments. The platforms themselves are complicit.
'YouTube and others often defer to local legal frameworks, even when those frameworks are being used to suppress free expression,' Baig said. What's worse, he explained, is the lack of transparency. 'The compliance is usually opaque. Platforms rarely clarify the legal grounds or whether content violates platform policies.'
He believes that in high-growth markets like India, where political pressure runs high, platforms tend to over-comply. 'In India's case, where freedom of expression is increasingly under strain, platforms have a responsibility to apply higher scrutiny, particularly when the takedowns target journalistic or political content. Unfortunately, platforms tend to over-comply in high-growth markets like India, prioritising access to user bases over rights,' he said.
And this is where the situation becomes dangerous, not just for Pakistanis, but for the broader digital region. 'India's bans may embolden similar retaliatory actions from other states,' Baig said. 'It shifts content moderation from a question of community safety to one of nationalistic control.' And that, he warned, is already creating a chilling effect for independent voices on both sides of the border.
He didn't hold back on what platforms like YouTube should be doing either.
'YouTube must be held to a far higher standard of transparency in politically sensitive contexts,' Baig said. At the very least, he believes, they should disclose when content has been blocked due to government requests, clearly state the legal justifications, and differentiate these from violations of community guidelines. 'Without this, platforms become silent enablers of Indian state censorship.'
And for Pakistani creators, he had a message — don't rely on a single platform. 'Creators must understand that platform policies and geopolitical trends increasingly overlap,' he said. His advice? Diversify. 'Explore other platforms, email newsletters, even independent hosting.'
More importantly, he urged creators to document what's happening. 'They should build solidarity with regional and international digital rights networks. It's no longer enough to produce content, you have to defend your right to be seen.'
Baig also pointed out the elephant in the room, Pakistan's own history of banning Indian content. While not defending the tit-for-tat, he put it in context.
'While blocking content is never an ideal solution, it's important to recognise who set this precedent,' he said. 'India has aggressively used its regulatory powers to censor Pakistani news and independent voices across platforms. Pakistan's response, while not commendable in itself, is clearly reactive, maybe even seen as a defensive measure in an increasingly hostile digital environment shaped by India's actions.'
He stressed that this escalation didn't happen in a vacuum. 'India, as a much larger digital market and regional power, bears significant responsibility for triggering this race to the bottom.' What's needed now, he said, isn't more mutual censorship. 'India needs to step back from its hyper-nationalist digital posture and re-commit to regional openness and informational exchange. And Pakistan shouldn't follow the same flawed logic introduced by India.'
In the end, Baig said this fight isn't just about India or Pakistan, it's about the future of the internet in South Asia.
'What's at stake is whether platforms like YouTube can uphold any consistent standard of rights across jurisdictions or whether they'll bend entirely to political pressure,' he said. 'If companies don't step up, the internet in South Asia could become a fragmented, platform-controlled patchwork, unrecognisable from the open web we were promised.'
What lies ahead
This isn't just about blocked videos or regional rivalries playing out online. What's happening now feels like a shift. The internet, once imagined as a space where borders mattered less, is slowly starting to mirror the political divides on the ground. And for creators, audiences, and even tech platforms, that shift is becoming harder to ignore.
For Pakistani YouTubers, the ban isn't just a content issue, it's personal. Their stories, opinions, and creative work are no longer reaching a massive audience that once engaged with them freely. For Indian viewers, it means being cut off from perspectives they may not always agree with, but that were part of a much-needed regional dialogue.
The ban also raises tough questions for platforms like YouTube. Can they really call themselves champions of free speech if they quietly give in to political pressure every time a government pushes back? If a creator's visibility can be erased overnight because a country doesn't like what they say, then what kind of internet are we building?
And what about the viewers, the millions who tuned in not for politics but for shared laughs, cricket commentary, or longform conversations about society and life on the other side of the border? They've lost something too. A small but meaningful connection that survived despite history, headlines, and hostilities.
What's clear is this. The more governments turn the internet into a battleground, the more it loses the openness that once made it powerful. And while creators like Shehzad continue speaking up, and experts like Asad call out the system, it's hard not to feel that something important is slipping away.
But not all hope is lost. People are still watching through VPNs. Conversations are still happening in smaller corners of the web. Creators are finding new platforms, new ways to reach out. Because the truth is, while states may try to silence voices, stories have a way of finding their way through.
The question now is, who gets to decide what we hear, and who we hear it from?
And maybe more importantly, who's still listening?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil vows to fight on after release
Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil speaks to media after being released from immigration custody in Jena, Louisiana, U.S. June 20, 2025. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article Mahmoud Khalil vowed to resume pro-Palestinian activism as he returned to New York a day after he was released on bail from a jail for immigrants, even as US President Donald Trump's administration said it will continue its efforts to deport the recent Columbia University graduate. He arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on Saturday afternoon to cheers and ululations from friends and supporters. Khalil, 30, was reunited with his wife, a US citizen, and greeted at the airport by US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York. Shortly after returning to the New York City area and reuniting with his wife and child, Mahmoud Khalil delivered the following message: 'I will continue to protest with everyone of you. Not only if they threaten me with detention. Even if they would kill me I would still speak… — BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) June 21, 2025 "Not only if they threaten me with detention, even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Palestine again," Khalil said, holding a bouquet of flowers. "I just want to go back and just continue the work that I was already doing, advocating for Palestinian rights, speech that should actually be celebrated rather than punished." Khalil, who recently graduated from Columbia University in Manhattan, was a prominent figure in the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel student protest movement that swept campuses last year. Federal immigration agents arrested him in the lobby of his Columbia apartment building on March 8, making him the first target of Trump's effort to deport international students with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views. Read: Pro-Palestinian activist Khalil walks free after US judge orders release Ocasio-Cortez, speaking alongside Khalil at the airport, condemned the Trump administration for what she called "persecution based on political speech". "Being taken is wrong. It is illegal," she said. "It is an affront to every American." Free Palestine!" Khalil said with a raised fist as he left the airport. Khalil was born and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and became a U.S. lawful permanent resident last year. Nonetheless, citing an obscure part of federal immigration law that has not been invoked in more than 20 years, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had determined that Khalil and several other foreign pro-Palestinian students at US schools must be deported because their presence here could harm the government's foreign policy interests. Protesters, including some Jewish groups, say the government wrongly conflates their criticism of the Israeli government, one of the United States' closest allies, with antisemitism. Earlier this month, US District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey ruled that the government could not detain or deport Khalil based on Rubio's determination, finding the Trump administration was violating Khalil's constitutional right to free speech. On Friday, he ordered the Trump administration to release Khalil on bail while he continues to fight the government's deportation efforts and his lawsuit accusing the government of wrongful detention. A spokesperson for Trump said in a statement after the ruling that Khalil should be deported for "conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests" and for omitting or incorrectly describing his employment history on his application for form to become a permanent resident. Khalil has said his application form was correct and the allegations of omission are spurious. Mahmoud Khalil upon his return: 'The genocide is still happening in Gaza…the US government is funding this genocide and Columbia University is investing in this genocide. This is why I was protesting, and why I will continue to protest with every one of you…not only if they… — Meghnad Bose (@MeghnadBose93) June 21, 2025 Also on Friday, an immigration court in Louisiana ruled that Khalil must be deported. He will now challenge the decision in the immigration court, which is run by the Department of Justice rather than the government's judicial branch, through the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Trump administration appealed Farbiarz's rulings on Friday evening to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Previously, Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil walked out of a Louisiana immigrant detention center on Friday, hours after a judge ordered his release, a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist. "Although justice prevailed," he said upon his release in the rural town of Jena, "it's long, very long overdue. And this shouldn't have taken three months."
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Did India use commercial flights as ‘human shields'?
In the ongoing information warfare between India and Pakistan, narratives clash with great fervor. India has, over the past few weeks, come forward accusing Pakistan of using civilian airliners as 'shields' for their military aircraft during high tension timelines. However, a deep dive into the OSINT data encompassing flight logs, social media timestamps, and official military briefings reveals a most sinister exploitation of commercial flights. It suggests that rather than simply getting caught in the crossfire, these airplanes were intentionally steered by Indian air traffic controllers towards the crosshairs of the IAF strike packages, which were positioned in the Kashmir and Jammu regions, instead of the safer east-south-easterly routes. As the provided OSINT images suggest, air traffic control cynically turned these passengers into 'human shields' for IAF fighter jets. Diverting civilian aircraft into a conflict zone, especially for military purposes, is an outrageous breach of humanitarian law. It also depicts utter contempt for human life and violently disrupts the sacredness of civilian airspace. The military maneuvers alongside flights conducted by commercial airlines leave an unnerving imprint, which calls for thorough investigation of responsibility and instant global attention. Commercial flights pushed into danger In contrast to the tracks navigated by these specific aircraft, commercial flights operating in these sectors were supposed to take well-timed and east-south-east directions avoiding 'danger-zones'. However, OSINT offered evidence records which clearly demonstrate the opposite hypothesis during the claimed periods of IAF military activities. Let's talk about the baseline first: The preset 'normal route' for these airliners is showcased as a magenta line in the image below. Normal Flight Path followed by Air Asia at 2202 PST on 6 May 2025 This 'standard flight path' of the route was not to be! And the airliners were tracked in a northward direction, which purportedly brought civilian flights deep into the core of the military action zone. Flight tracker data from 6 May 2025, 19:30 UTC shows a bobbing cluster of commercial aircraft including THA961, KAC-381, THA911, THA931 to mention a few as per above video 1. They seem to have a northern heading. Instead of being diverted southwards and out of a possible conflict, these flights seem to be kept or actively routed towards the Jammu & Kashmir parts of the region. Diverted Path followed by Airliners at 0030 - 0032 PST on 7 May 2025 / 1930 – 1932 UTC, 6 May 2025 The observation is supported by another snapshot from the same day at 19:32 UTC. Airliners such as KLM871 and THA925 were also continuing their journey along northern routes a mere three minutes before the purported peak of military activity. The persistent flow of civilian traffic, apparently ordered or allowed to continue on that northern heading, sharply contrasts accepted risk management practices in aviation safety during armed conflicts. The screenshot below of flight KLM809's (Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur) KLM Airways flight shows the normal operating track which differs grossly from the unsettling practice which took place on that fateful night. This image demonstrates that the very same "normal route" – which was vectored northwards – commonly follows the depicted track under run-of-the-mill circumstances. This suggests not an accidental momentary lapse, but a consistent operational pattern. Normal Flight Path followed by KLM at 0945 PST (0445 UTC) on 6 May 2025 IAF's concealed maneuvers The timeline of this scenario proceeded with IAF operations started at 0010 hours PST 7 May 2025 & 6 May 1910 UTC with Indian airstrike within Pakistan's borders at 35 minutes past midnight which is 0035 PST 7 May 2025 &1935 UTC 6 May 2025. A PAF response was activated at 0012 hrs PST & 1912 UTC. Added to the list of projectiles fired at the heart of Pakistan were Bahawalpur to the south, Muzaffarabad mosque in the north, alongside a presumed Muridke compound. The most concerning tale of pertaining to 'human shield' disclaimer is the control airspace of the IAF over regions of Indian Kashmir and Jammu as it is proven that commercial flights were routed into these zones. Official Images released showing active Indian Operations at 0035 PST IAF's presence and civilian overlap The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) gave a press briefing with the slide 'RECONSTRUCTION OF EVENTS' as below, when a photograph in the slide strikingly caught the attention of the author. It shows IAF strike packages marked with red boxes and dotted over the LOC as well as the Indian Kashmir and Jammu region. PAF Brief showing location of IAF Package at 0030 PST Combining PAF's reconstruction with actual civilian flight data tells a similar story. The flight tracker info showing 6 May 2025, UTC 19:35:06 timestamped below Image 8 shows civilian air traffic feeding into the so-called 'operational zones' of IAF redacted strikes. The picture exhibits superdense garrisoned traffic of jets in the construed airspace of the north. The display provides uncanny resemblance to random intersections of civil flight paths with IAF fighter activities. Airliners diverted over the IAF Package and S-400 Site Shown in the image below, the overlap is reemphasized with OSINT along the dangerous corridor where Qatar Airways flight QTR85V and China Southern Airlines flight CSN8070 are located, corroborating the timeline. As for their flight paths, QTR85V is visible south of Bhatinda and south-west of Adhampur, locations that, according to PAF charts, were close to where a Rafael aircraft was operating (288 / 19 NM from Bhatinda) and where an S-400 was reportedly deployed. CSN8070 is also in almost the same critical location. Noteworthy is that Vietnam Airlines flight HVN18 also traversed this sensitive region. With the same timing, this flight was flying east to Hanoi from Paris, and put through 'beelining' around the highly contested area. Chinese, Qatari, Vietnamese and Dutch Airliners being flown over the battle space Acquired information, as per the following image, suggests there was also Kuwait Airways flight KAC381 (Kuwait City – Delhi) appears to have taken the most curious detour crossing the furthest to 'exotic' combat zones as well. Its flight path castles a continuous line which markedly contradicts the usual routes airline flights take through the LOC which appears even more transparent as it virtually flies straight to the spot 'to protect IAF indeed'. This precise positioning of multiple civilian airliners near key Indian military assets and operational zones intensifies the 'human shield' claim. Kuwait Airways flew a diverted path all along the International Border and LOC while a large number of IAF and PAF fighters were airborne All went quiet on the eastern front as soon as 1945 UTC – 0045 hrs PST. Once the IAF had completed its weapons release and its munitions had hit their targets. All airliners diverted and jumbled up now being reverted back at 0045 PST to their destination path also ensuring safe exit of IAF fighter after their strikes The "Kill Chart" and strategic positioning Seen in the official PAF brief, the 'Kill Chart' shared with media representatives featured IAF aircraft such as the Rafale, MiG 29, Su-30 MKI, with shooting ranges marked relative to important locations like Srinagar, Jammu and the International Border. In the modified image of the 'Kill Chart' below, the red box highlights an area where civilian airliners were flying heavily around the time the alleged strikes occurred. The area where the IAF aircraft were said to be operating overlaps and is key to the 'human shield' narrative. Red Box indicating PAF avoided shooting IAF fighters in the area with human shield airliners. The implication is stark: Pakistani fighter jets took great care taking 'shots of opportunity in Grind' while in BVR (Beyond Visual Range) air combat mode and 'sorting' the targets avoiding the commercial jets in the area. As well as defend themselves from crossfire during any aggressive attempts from IAF jets which were indeed present in the conflict zones of Indian Kashmir and Jammu. If IAF jets had commanding presence over these particular zones – which was not to be – and civilian airliners were forced or retained on to the Northern paths to these zones, it would cripple all attempts by Pakistan air defence to intercept or counter fire. This specific approach makes defendable every argument around the possible killing of thousands of innocent civilians under the guise of military operations. A grave violation: the purposeful proximity The integration of OSINT, including flight tracking data, local Bahawalpur tweet – image 14 – reporting impacts around 0040 PST, and military replays, provides a coherent yet disturbing analysis. The critical concern is: Why were commercial airlines actively instructed to forcefully maneuver into, and purportedly stay within, an airstrike package IAF purportedly positioned over Kashmir and Jammu, rather than being safely, international airspace guideline compliant, routed well south of the conflict zone? A tweet from local shows that by 0040 PST the airstrikes had struck their targets Best practice aviation safety risk management protocols order the immediate air space clearance of commercial aviation during any aviation military activity. Regardless, the OSINT data paints a picture that not only were those protocols completely disregarded, but an illogical dangerous northern route was enforced or followed. Implications: a deliberate act of endangerment This glaring absence of southward diversions, coupled with the dense civilian air traffic being funnelled northwards, compels a severe examination of the implications for India's conduct… Gross Negligence and Strategic Misjudgment: One possibility points to an appalling failure of coordination and judgment within India's command and control. Such a lapse, leading to thousands of civilian lives being knowingly exposed to a conflict zone, would constitute a profound breach of aviation safety and human ethics. One possibility points to an appalling failure of coordination and judgment within India's command and control. Such a lapse, leading to thousands of civilian lives being knowingly exposed to a conflict zone, would constitute a profound breach of aviation safety and human ethics. A Deliberate 'Human Shield' Tactic: The most chilling implication, and the focus of the counter-narrative which the writer offers here, is the allegation of an 'intent strategy'. Steering civilian airliners into an active operational zone transforms the aircraft and passengers into a 'human shield' that inhibits effective defensive countermeasures. If this hypothesis was proven, the consequences would not only be devastating in terms of international humanitarian law—particularly the principle of distinction—but also represent a deeply immoral act of civilian life cannibalization for the purposes of warfare. The human cost and the call for accountability Above and beyond the specific intricacies of flight paths and military maps lies an unquestionable human dimension. Every yellow symbol on those flight tracker maps conveys hundreds of individuals, including passengers, pilots, and cabin crew, unaware that their routine flight was allegedly meant to be turned into some sort of a dangerous military operation. It is deeply disturbing and morally distressing to contemplate that these people might have been intended to be a shield for military operations behind the scenes. The comprehensive collection of open-source intelligence provided in this case, such as detailed flight tracking data, contemporaneous social media reports, and official military briefings, along with others, raises some of the most profound and unsettling questions alongside the ones that have already been answered. It strongly indicates that civilian airliners were purposely steered dangerously close to IAF operational zones, directly undermining the narrative India has been pointing out against Pakistan. It goes beyond the issues of international relations or military maneuvers; it is an investigation into law and morality, along with the fundamental right to unimpeded access to traversing through airspace regarded as civilian without risk. There needs to be an investigation done by an outside entity because 'unbiased' has become a myth in modern discourse. It is necessary to understand so that measures can be put in place to prevent what can been bluntly described as 'contemptable'. Every single honest citizen of the world is yet to receive answers on what these innocent individuals did to deserve being jammed into the space just above the so-called weapon delivery zone and who bears the ultimate responsibility for this alleged act of deception and endangerment. Fahad Masood is an aviation analyst and freelance contributor All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the author
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan to recommend Trump for Nobel Peace Prize
U.S. President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he walks on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 25, 2025. PHOTO:REUTER Listen to article Pakistan said on Saturday it would recommend US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, an accolade that he has said he craves, for his work in helping to resolve the recent conflict between Pakistan and India. Some analysts in Pakistan said the move might persuade Trump to think again about potentially joining Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities. Pakistan has condemned Israel's action as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. Pakistan agrees that US diplomatic intervention ended the fighting, but India says it was a bilateral agreement between the two militaries. "President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation," Pakistan said. "This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker." Governments can nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. There was no immediate response from Washington. A spokesperson for the Indian government did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has repeatedly said that he's willing to mediate between Pakistan and India over the disputed Kashmir region, their main source of enmity. In a social media post on Friday, Trump gave a long list of conflicts he said he had resolved, including India and Pakistan and the Abraham accords in his first term between Israel and some Muslim-majority countries. He added: "I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do." Mushahid Hussain, a former chair of the Senate Defence Committee in Pakistan's parliament, suggested nominating Trump for the peace prize was justified. "Trump is good for Pakistan," he said. "If this panders to Trump's ego, so be it. All the European leaders have been sucking up to him big time." But the move was not universally applauded in Pakistan, where Trump's support for Israel's war in Gaza has inflamed passions.
