Vociferous and unequivocal

Richard Nixon’s book “leaders” is a stunner; the book expounds upon the men that changed the world. Probably, all those leaders on whom   Nixon dwelt were men with immaculate traits. One hallmark which was common in almost all was their ability to speak with authority. Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle and Douglas MacArthur spoke with such panache that all were awe-inspired. Forget about the likes of Churchill or Yoshida for that matter; let us talk about the man at the helm in Pakistan, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. For the sake of simplicity, the piece will not even try to compare Sharif’s oratory prowess with that of the above-mentioned leaders, but will instead shed-light on his much-awaited speech to the nation, especially his “strategy” as regards power crisis and terrorism. The man in question took over   the coveted crown of premiership for the third time in June this year. This was possible because his party overpowered not only the PPP but also PTI

The trajectory of Indo-Pak relations has been pretty simple: a collision course has been followed by both these neighbors over the past 66 years.   Let’s not go into the main conflict and the crises that emanated from that. The piece will shed light on a few sardonic antics shown by the Indian defense forces and government/opposition off-late. In the   process this piece will   deride some hollow arguments made by the ever-growing clique of liberals in Pakistan. Civilian supremacy is something that many of us covet; often Indian Army is given credit for being truly professional, for they haven’t as yet subverted the government. Yes indeed, it is something creditable however; we need not compare the milieus of both the countries. The difference was there for all to see. Had Nehru appointed General P N Thappar as defense minister, for instance sake , things might have been very different. One can disagree with many of the assertions made by General Ved Prakash Malik in his book

Introduction: American foreign policy is based upon the infamous Monroe Doctrine and in fact more importantly on the ideas of President Woodrow Wilson. Before, going into that let’s first establish the fact that the international system is anarchic, brutal and based upon national interest. Thus, the realist worldview takes primacy over liberalism, which calls for cooperation, diplomacy and disarmament. Woodrow Wilson always aspired America to put more weight in the international system , but the rationale was for humanitarian purposes  and the endorsement of democracy. However, it is imperative to fathom the fact that America has always looked after her geo-strategic interests under the garb of liberalism. For instance the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine were not enunciated due to any love lost for Greece, Turkey and other European countries, but because the Americans had to counter Communism. The reason why American foreign policy is being discussed here is that it has a d

History is often thought of as a benign and laborious field of study, more so in our part of the world. This is primarily because we inter change history with rhetoric, long and glorified anecdotes brimming with statistical data. Hence it is only natural that this unease about history has been created. We, being a rare breed in academic circles of Pakistan have to have few readymade answers up our sleeves regarding why of all the subjects have we chosen a “useless” and “scope less” subject. Hence we found it imperative to answer this basic question in the inaugural History Department newsletter. We often have to make choices; some of them directly affect our future. Electing, history as a major field of study was never a hard decision for us, for something important occurred to us. Perhaps, we realized that history embraces something beyond dates and plain narratives. It is a documentation of human experiences. Descartes gave a very befitting example regarding our preconceived

History is replete with accounts and anecdotes of wars; those wars which changed the course of history in more ways than one.   As far as international relations is concerned, the 30-year old war, and the ensuing Treaty of Westphalia was very imperative, to say the least.   After the inception of the Westphalian system of state sovereignty, concepts like national interests, balance of power and in a way security dilemma began to take shape. However, Cardinal Richelieu gave the concept of Raison d’état even before 1648.   Britain was astute enough to pitch the weak against a comparatively mighty power, in a view to maintain balance of power. A Semblance of protracted peace was evident in the 19 th century; however, something was cooking-up. Nationalist movements, coupled with revolutions and feuds, resulted in the unification of Italy and Germany. Soon, at the fag end of the 19 th century, things took a new course. Eventually, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand triggere