The Pak-India standoff may have paused (if not, ended) with a ceasefire, but the national cohesion it triggered cannot be allowed to be shelved alongside the military briefings. For once in a long, long time, Pakistan spoke with one voice, and that voice included the government, opposition, security institutions, and media alike.
\nWhen the prime minister, military leadership, and opposition leaders, including the PTI, sat across the same table, it marked the return of something rare in our politics: strategic seriousness.
\nPTI Chairman Gohar Khan\u2019s unequivocal condemnation of Indian aggression and his commitment to stand by the armed forces was more than symbolic. That he dared sit beside Shehbaz Sharif-a man his party had not spared in months of blistering campaign rhetoric-showed what real political maturity can look like. In crisis, Pakistan rediscovered consensus. The question is whether we can sustain it when the cameras switch off.
\nPTI Secretary General Omar Ayub, however, now seems interested in preserving the tragic status quo. In a heated presser on Monday, he slammed the government for \u201cfailure\u201d to respond \u201cpromptly and decisively,\u201d going back on his own word of caution to party workers about how undermining state institutions through careless rhetoric could undo the very unity Pakistan needed to preserve its deterrence. Unfortunately, some PTI-affiliated accounts on social media still chose to mock the military response, echoing hostile talking points that were instantly amplified by Indian media. In an information war, this self-sabotage is more damaging than dissent.
\nHistory offers both guidance and warning. In 1965 and again in 1998, Pakistani society closed ranks to face external threats with conviction, not compulsion. But in 1971, and more recently in the polarising years following the 2007 emergency, our internal fault lines proved fatal. We should not repeat those lessons in the digital age, where disinformation multiplies faster than diplomacy.
\nUnity, to be lasting, must be institutionalised. This means dialogue better outlives the missiles. It means respecting the legitimacy of opposition, restraining toxic tribalism in media discourse, and shielding national security from point-scoring. If we can rally for Kashmir and Pahalgam, we can also rally for transparent justice, fair elections, and a common minimum agenda on education, health, and climate.
\nThe hammer of war has fallen. What we build with it now will define our peace.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Pak-India standoff may have paused (if not, ended) with a ceasefire, but the national cohesion it triggered cannot be allowed to be shelved alongside the military briefings. For once in a long, long time, Pakistan spoke with one voice, and that voice included the government, opposition, security institutions, and media alike. When the prime […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-478172","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-editorial"},"yoast_head":"\n