Today

Getty Images

SRG / SSR

Getty Images

‘Smuggling routes’

Reuters

Sarah Louise Beennett

Sarah Louise Bennett

The Moroccan autonomy proposal, which has been advanced as a “realistic” solution to the Western Sahara conflict, reflects a deeply flawed understanding of international law, decolonization, and regional stability. Far from offering a genuine path to peace, the autonomy plan is a strategic repackaging of occupation that violates the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination and undermines the very foundations of international order.

The Moroccan autonomy proposal is premised on denying the Sahrawi people their inalienable right to self-determination. This right is not aspirational—it is enshrined in international law, including the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV), which mandates the immediate and unconditional end of colonialism. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its 1975 advisory opinion, found no legal ties of sovereignty between Morocco and Western Sahara, reinforcing the principle that sovereignty must be decided by the people of the territory, not imposed by external actors.

Even on its own terms, Morocco’s proposed autonomy lacks credibility. In Morocco the king rules, and in the Moroccan constitution there are red lines (especially concerning the monarchy and Western Sahara) that cannot be crossed. The idea that such a system could guarantee democratic freedoms, autonomy, and political rights to Sahrawis is implausible.

Moreover, Rabat has not implemented meaningful decentralization within Morocco itself, making the Western Sahara “autonomy” claim look more like a political smokescreen than a genuine offer. How can Morocco offer regional autonomy while denying it in other regions in Morocco?

The 1991 UN-brokered peace agreement was based on a clear premise: a referendum allowing Sahrawis to choose between independence, integration with Morocco, or autonomy. Morocco initially agreed to this but has since blocked all efforts to hold a credible vote. Now it seeks to erase independence as an option entirely. This is not negotiation—it is blackmail. The Sahrawi people, through their recognized representative, the Frente POLISARIO, continue to demand the referendum they were promised.

The Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara since 1975 constitutes a textbook case of colonial acquisition of territory by force. Supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan is not a neutral act—it legitimizes the notion that military occupation can eventually be sanitized through diplomatic delay and political rebranding. This directly undermines international norms established after World War II to prevent wars of conquest.

If the international community endorses this model in Western Sahara, what prevents other states from using similar tactics? The implications for global peace and conflict resolution are deeply concerning.

Perhaps most troubling is the erasure of Sahrawi voices from the autonomy discourse. The overwhelming majority of Sahrawis, both in the occupied territories and in refugee camps in Algeria, reject Morocco’s proposal. They see it not as compromise, but as capitulation. Peace cannot be imposed through coercion; it must be built on consent. To impose autonomy without a referendum is to deny Sahrawis their most basic political agency.

The European Union, which has long presented itself as a defender of international law and multilateralism, is uniquely placed to play a constructive role in resolving this conflict. A just and lasting solution in Western Sahara would not only align with the EU’s normative values—it would serve its strategic interests.

First, stability in the Maghreb is essential for European security. The region is geographically close, interconnected via migration routes, and strategically situated near Europe’s southern flank. Instability in Western Sahara, if left unresolved, continues to fuel regional tensions and prevents effective regional cooperation.

Second, Western Sahara is rich in resources that are important to the EU, including fisheries, phosphates, agriculture, and renewable energy (especially solar and wind potential). The EU has been embroiled in repeated legal disputes over trade and fisheries agreements involving Western Sahara, which European courts have ruled cannot be applied to the territory without the consent of its people. A political resolution grounded in international law would finally end these legal and ethical challenges.

Third, resolving the Western Sahara issue would create a foundation for genuine regional integration. A stable, cooperative Maghreb—encompassing an independent Sahrawi Republic, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Libya, and Morocco—could emerge as a reliable partner to the EU, offering a bloc of stability, trade, and renewable energy cooperation. Such a development would support the EU’s ambitions for a sustainable, secure, and diversified energy transition.

Fourth, a lasting resolution would also help the EU manage migration more humanely and effectively. Stability and economic development in the Maghreb reduce the drivers of irregular migration. Yet the continued occupation and marginalization of the Sahrawi people contribute to regional insecurity, frustration, and radicalization risks—pressures that ultimately impact Europe.

Finally, the EU must protect its credibility. Supporting Morocco’s autonomy plan while ignoring UN resolutions and EU court decisions undermines the Union’s claims to be a values-based global actor. If Europe allows geopolitical convenience to trump principle, it erodes trust in its foreign policy and emboldens others to disregard international norms.

Rather than doubling down on flawed frameworks, the international community—especially the European Union—should explore innovative, justice-based solutions that prioritize regional cooperation and free association. A revived Maghreb Union could serve as a model of post-colonial regional integration. But such a vision can only be realized once the colonial injustice in Western Sahara is addressed through genuine decolonization, not disguised through autonomy.

The autonomy proposal is not a step toward peace—it is a sophisticated attempt to entrench occupation and delay justice. It is rooted in imperial logic, not international law. It ignores the clear legal, moral, and political rights of the Sahrawi people to choose their own future.

If the world truly believes in justice, peace, and the rules-based international order, it must stop rewarding colonial conquest. It must uphold its commitment to decolonization and demand a fair, credible referendum that includes independence as an option.

To accept anything less is to betray the Sahrawi people—and the principles on which global peace and European credibility depend.

Recently elected Pope Leo XIV is the first pontiff from the United States, just as the country’s president is shaking up the global order. With both the US and the Catholic Church deeply divided, what does Pope Leo’s selection mean for Catholics in the US and worldwide?

UNIFIL says incident first of its kind since Israel and Lebanese-armed group Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire last November.

Direct fire from the Israeli military hit the perimeter of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s (UNIFIL) peacekeeping positions in south Lebanon, the mission said.

In a statement on Wednesday, UNIFIL added that the incident on Tuesday was the first of its kind since Israel and Lebanese-armed group Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire last November.

UNIFIL said one of its bases in the village of Kfarchouba in southern Lebanon was hit. There was no immediate comment from the Israeli army.

“In recent days, UNIFIL has also observed other aggressive behaviour by the [Israeli military] towards peacekeepers performing operational activities in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1701,” it said in a post on X, referring to a UN resolution originally adopted in 2006 to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

UNIFIL is concerned by the recent aggressive posture of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) involving UNIFIL personnel and assets near the Blue Line, including yesterday’s incident in which a direct fire hit the perimeter of a UNIFIL position south of the village of Kfar Shouba.

— UNIFIL (@UNIFIL_) May 14, 2025

Tuesday’s incident occurred near the Blue Line, a UN-mapped demarcation separating Lebanon from Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, it added.

Any unauthorised crossing of the Blue Line by land or by air from any side constitutes a violation of Security Council Resolution 1701.

UNIFIL cited other alleged incidents it blamed on the Israeli army, including being targeted by lasers while it was performing a patrol with the Lebanese army in the southern border town of Maroun al-Ras on Tuesday.

“UNIFIL protests all such and we continue to remind all actors of their responsibility to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property and to respect the inviolability of UN assets and premises at all times,” it added.

Volatile ceasefire

Separately on Wednesday, Israel’s military said it killed a Hezbollah fighter in a strike on southern Lebanon.

“Earlier today [Wednesday], the [Israeli military] struck in the area of Qaaqaaiyet El Jisr in southern Lebanon, eliminating a Hezbollah terrorist who held the position of the commander of the Qabrikha area within the Hezbollah terrorist organisation,” a military statement said.

The November ceasefire ended a conflict in which Israel attacked Lebanon by air and invaded the country, devastating vast swaths of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah’s longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed in an Israeli attack in September.

The ceasefire terms require that neither Hezbollah nor any other armed group have weapons in areas near the border south of the Litani River, which flows into the Mediterranean some 20km (12 miles) north of the Israeli border.

They require Israel to withdraw troops from the south and the Lebanese army to deploy into the border region.

Although the truce officially ended hostilities, sporadic cross-border attacks have continued. Israel has regularly broken the truce and carried out air raids across southern Lebanon, also hitting neighbourhoods in Beirut’s southern suburbs, where Hezbollah retains strong support.

Israel still occupies five strategic hilltops along the border. While rockets have been fired into Israel from Lebanese territory on two separate occasions, Hezbollah has denied involvement.

Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem, has maintained that the group no longer keeps weapons in the border zone, in accordance with the truce.

In the aftermath of the armed insurgency that erupted in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in 1989, the valley fell into what Basharat Peer called ‘Curfewed Night’—a’ prolonged nightmare. Three decades later, New Delhi revoked Article 370, apparently to spur investment and deepen integration in the valley. Yet, for Kashmiris, the nightmare has not ended. The recent attack in Pahalgam, which led to Operation Sindoor, serves as an unmuted episode in Kashmir’s nightmare.

Decades ago, Kashmiris inscribed ‘Q.K.’ (Quit Kashmir) on courtyard walls, and slogans like ‘Go India Go,’ ‘Al-Umar,’ and ‘Taeju’ echoed through the valley. During a 2008 visit to KASHMIR, Arundhati Roy recorded hearing chants such as ‘Dhoodh maango ge, kheer dein ge; Kashmir maango ge, cheer dein ge’ (Ask for milk, we’ll give you dessert; ask for Kashmir, we’ll tear you apart). Today, those slogans have faded. Headlines now highlight G20 meetings and post-2019 booms in tourism and investment. This raises a critical question: has the revocation of Article 370 erased half a century of resentment in just six years?

The Pahalgam attack challenges the narrative of Modi’s prosperous ‘Naya Kashmir.’ According to the managing editor of Kashmir Times, ‘normalcy has proved to be a mirage in Kashmir.’ After India’s 2019 clampdown silenced most headlines, KASHMIR faded away from the memory of the international community. But silence does not translate into peace. Within a month of the revocation of Article 370, more than 200 politicians, 100 community leaders, and many outspoken activists were imprisoned. There has been a systemic institutionalization of information control. Journalists and human rights defenders have been harassed, detained, and accused of ‘terrorism’ for reporting gross human rights violations in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmiris witness collective punishment. The human cost is profound: in 2022, a Kashmiri man lost his overseas job, faced financial hardship, and struggled with legal burdens because his brother, a journalist, was arrested for sharing a protest video on Twitter (now X).

Farah Bashir recounts in her memoir that every Kashmiri lives with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) or is described as being possessed by a djinn—a traditional way of expressing mental anguish. During crackdowns, soldiers storm homes, ransack belongings, and scatter staples like rice and flour across the floor. These crackdowns often lead to food shortages and, at times, starvation. Reigniting collective trauma, Indian security forces launched a sweeping crackdown following the Pahalgam attack across the valley. Kashmiri students in Jammu and across northern Indian states have faced a wave of violence, threats, and communal slurs. Around 1,500 Kashmiris have been placed under preventive detention. India’s response to the attack shows how the country continues to conflate security with collective punishment. For those born after 1990, fear and resistance have become normalized elements of daily life. Repression in Occupied Kashmir has migrated from open violence to more invisible, psychological forms of control. 

In 2021, the Russell Tribunal on Kashmir warned that the Valley had reached the brink of genocide, fueled by Hindutva-driven policies carried out with impunity. Yet, this reality remains largely invisible in both Indian and global media. The absence of independent reporting suggests that media bias is deeply entrenched, systematically sidelining accounts of state violence. It was only after the mass casualties of Indian tourists in the Pahalgam attack that global attention briefly redirected towards the situation in Occupied Kashmir, highlighting how the region’s persistent human rights crisis otherwise remains marginalized in international discourse.

Only a few Indian analysts have criticized their mainstream media for perpetuating the illusion of normalcy in the disputed territory, arguing that this portrayal masks the enduring reality of Jammu and Kashmir as a war zone. Thousands of Indian troops are omnipresent, and every Friday, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is placed under house arrest to prevent him from leading prayers. 

Since 2019, normalcy in Kashmir has been manufactured through repression, control of the media, and projection of economic development. As long as dissent is crushed, histories erased, and trauma left unhealed, Occupied Kashmir will remain a conflict unresolved—silenced, perhaps, but far from settled. 

The Parliament of the Maldives has impeached two judges of the country’s Supreme Court, deepening a political crisis triggered by President Mohamed Muizzu’s push to amend the constitution and strip legislators of their seats if they switch political parties.

The Parliament, where the governing People’s National Congress holds a supermajority, voted on Wednesday to remove Justices Azmiralda Zahir and Mahaz Ali Zahir on allegations of abuse of power.

The vote, which passed 68 – 11, took place as dozens of opposition supporters rallied outside the Parliament House, calling for Muizzu’s resignation and an end to what they called the intimidation of judges.

The move comes more than two months after the judicial watchdog, dominated by Muizzu’s allies, suspended the two judges and their colleague, Justice Husnu al-Suood. At the time, the seven-member Supreme Court bench had been holding hearings into a petition challenging the anti-defection measures.

Suood later resigned from the top court, accusing Muizzu and Attorney General Ahmed Usham of intimidating all the judges of the Supreme Court to secure a judgement in their favour.

The president and his lawyer deny the charges.

“I do not interfere with the judiciary,” Muizzu told reporters during a 14-hour news conference on May 3. “I have never done so. I do not control the [the judicial watchdog].”

The crisis has paralysed the Maldives’s Supreme Court, halting hearings in all ongoing cases, including on the constitutional amendments. It has also raised fears of renewed instability in the Indian Ocean honeymoon destination, which held its first multiparty elections in 2008, but has been roiled by political turmoil since, including a coup d’etat, disputed elections, and the killings and jailing of dissidents.

‘Attack on judiciary’

Azmiralda and Mahaz denounced their impeachment on Wednesday.

“This is an attack on the Maldivian judiciary. It is no ordinary matter to bring the Maldives Supreme Court to a halt,” Azmiralda said in a statement. “My hope is that one day, when the rule of law is established in this country … all of the various officials who took part in destroying the Supreme Court are held accountable.”

The case against the two judges stems from the arrest of Azmiralda’s husband, Ismail Latheef, during a police raid on a spa where he was receiving a massage in the Maldivian capital, Male, on December 4 of last year.

The incident happened two weeks after Muizzu ratified the anti-defection measures.

The controversial amendments stipulate that legislators elected on a political party ticket would lose their seat if they switch parties, or if they resign or are expelled from their party. The provisions effectively allow Muizzu to maintain his supermajority in Parliament, where his party controls 79 of the chamber’s 93 seats.

The president has argued they are necessary to “improve political stability”, but opponents say they would destroy the country’s system of checks and balances.

At the time of Latheef’s arrest, a former member of parliament had filed a petition at the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the amendments, but the bench had yet to decide to take up the case.

Latheef was held overnight for more than 12 hours, on charges of soliciting a prostitute, but was released by a judge at the Criminal Court. In the ruling, the judge noted that the masseuse treating Latheef was fully clothed at the time of the raid, and that the room they were in was unlocked.

The prosecutor’s office later shelved the case against Latheef, citing a lack of evidence.

But after the Supreme Court began reviewing the constitutional amendments in February, the watchdog Judicial Services Commission (JSC) took up a separate case against Azmiralda and Mahaz, claiming the two judges had unlawfully lobbied lower court judges to secure Latheef’s release.

The JSC recommended that the Parliament impeach them last month.

‘No ulterior motives’

The judges have denied the charges, with lawyers for Azmiralda saying that the case was “manufactured by top government officials to suspend” them “in order to influence the outcome of the constitutional case before the Supreme Court”.

Usham, the Attorney General, has told Al Jazeera that the government “categorically denies these allegations”.

“There is absolutely no truth to the claim that the executive branch had any hand in the JSC’s [the judicial watchdog’s] decision,” he wrote in an email. “The suspension was pursuant to law and… any suggestion of ulterior motives is firmly rejected by the Government.”

The case, however, has drawn criticism from the United Nations and rights groups.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN’s special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, expressed grave concern last month over the action against the three judges, saying they appear to be aimed at undermining the Supreme Court’s judicial review of the anti-defection measures.

“The disciplinary proceedings brought against three of the Supreme Court’s Justices appear to violate the principle that judges can only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence and in accordance with fair procedures guaranteeing objectivity and impartiality as provided for by the Constitution or the law,” she wrote. “The pressure of suspensions, disciplinary proceedings and investigations may amount to an interference in the independence of this institution.”

After a signing trade and defence deals with the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, US President Donald Trump told media in Doha that the two had also discussed the Russia-Ukraine war and Iran’s nuclear programme.

The BBC’s boss has reminded stars to follow the corporation’s rules and avoid damaging “mistakes”, after Gary Lineker attracted renewed criticism for his use of social media.

On Tuesday, the Match of the Day host deleted an Instagram story post he shared from the group Palestine Lobby, which said: “Zionism explained in two minutes” and featured an illustration of a rat.

A rat has historically been used as an antisemitic insult, referring to language used by Nazi Germany to characterise Jews. His representatives said he was not aware of the connection.

Asked whether the post had broken BBC guidelines, director general Tim Davie said: “The BBC’s reputation is held by everyone, and when someone makes a mistake, it costs us.”

He added: “I think we absolutely need people to be exemplars of the BBC values and follow our social media policy. It’s as simple as that.”

The Campaign Against Antisemitism said it was submitting a complaint to the BBC, adding that Lineker’s “continued association with the BBC is untenable”.

The charity posted on X: “Nothing to see here. Just Gary Lineker’s Instagram account sharing an anti-Israel video misrepresenting Zionism, complete with a rat emoji.”

A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies of British Jews said “the BBC should ask him to leave now rather than allowing him to dictate his own terms”.

“He has caused great offence with this video – particularly with his egregious use of a rat emoji to illustrate Zionists.”

Lineker’s agent said: “Whilst viewing and reposting a video, Gary did not notice a rodent emoticon added by the author of the post. Although if he had, he would not have made any connection. The repost has been removed.”

Zionism refers to the movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel, and thus support for the modern state of Israel.

The BBC, when asked on Tuesday if it had any comment on Lineker’s now-removed post, responded by referring to its guidance on personal use of social media.

The former England striker has attracted criticism before for his posts on social media in the past.

He was temporarily suspended from the BBC in March 2023 after an impartiality row over a post in which he said language used to promote a government asylum policy was “not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.

The BBC’s social media rules were then rewritten to say presenters of flagship programmes outside news and current affairs – including Match of the Day – have “a particular responsibility to respect the BBC’s impartiality, because of their profile on the BBC”.

In November 2024, Lineker announced his departure from Match of the Day, but he will remain with the BBC to front FA Cup and World Cup coverage.

A coordinated wave of violence has raged through Borno State in northeastern Nigeria between May 12 and 13, as the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) launched its most sophisticated assault in recent memory. 

The group, wielding advanced drone capabilities and high mobility tactics, attacked military installations, key towns, and vital roadways, reigniting fears over the fragility of Nigeria’s counterinsurgency efforts and the evolving face of terrorism in the Lake Chad Basin.

The offensive targeted Marte, Dikwa, Rann (Kala-Balge LGA), and the Damboa–Maiduguri road in near-simultaneous strikes that signalled strategic coordination, technological evolution, and growing audacity. 

Before this latest wave, however, the Borno State government itself was the first to raise the alarm when the resurgence of attacks by ISWAP began to intensify in April. 

Marte – 12 May, 3:00 a.m.

In the early hours of May 12, ISWAP fighters stormed Marte in northern Borno, dislodging the Nigerian military after a series of intense clashes. Local sources said several soldiers were captured, while others retreated toward Dikwa. The insurgents now control the town, which holds immense strategic value due to its access to Lake Chad smuggling corridors.

Rann and Dikwa – 13 May, midnight and afternoon

A dual strike followed just hours later. In Rann, ISWAP reportedly deployed drones, possibly for both surveillance and tactical strikes, before breaching the town’s defences, residents told a member of the civilian JTF. 

The incursion triggered mass civilian flight towards the Cameroonian border. Simultaneously in Dikwa, the group carried out another attack. The precision and timing of both attacks point to elevated operational planning and coordination. 

Damboa–Maiduguri Road – 13 May 

Later that day, an improvised explosive device (IED) ripped through the vital Damboa–Maiduguri corridor, disrupting civilian mobility. The route is a lifeline for economic activity; its compromise marks a major setback in efforts to stabilise southern Borno.

Damboa is a strategically important town in Borno State. It serves as a key pathway between Maiduguri and southern Borno, including Chibok and Biu local government areas. Damboa has been a hotspot in the Boko Haram insurgency, often targeted because of its role as a major food supply route. Its control is also vital for military operations and humanitarian access in the region.

Drones in the desert: a tactical turning point

ISWAP’s deployment of drones represents a major departure from the insurgency’s guerrilla roots. While aerial surveillance has long been the domain of state forces, the group’s apparent mastery of drone warfare introduces a new dimension to Nigeria’s protracted conflict.

These devices offer real-time intelligence and enhance battlefield accuracy, especially in isolated or under-supported military camps. In Rann, witnesses spoke of a buzzing sound in the sky before the town fell, suggesting a calculated dismantling of defensive positions.

The Nigerian military responded with aerial bombardments, but sources suggest some jets may have targeted already-abandoned facilities, raising questions about the accuracy of ground-to-air coordination.

The economic engine behind ISWAP’s resurgence

What enables ISWAP to sustain this scale and frequency of operations? HumAngle, over the past months, has documented a systematic, robust and diversified funding model that includes ransom payments targeting high-profile travellers. Taxation and extortion in ISWAP-held areas are enforced through mobile courts and checkpoints.

Cross-border smuggling networks, particularly those that deal with fuel, arms, and food, frequently pass through Cameroon, Niger, and Chad. Spoils from raided military bases replenish weapons and supplies.

“ISWAP is no longer distracted by clashes with its rival Boko Haram faction,” a source closely monitoring the situation informed HumAngle. He said the group has diminished its rival and successfully recruited many of its fighters to join their ranks.

The terror group hosts dozens of foreign fighters in the Bosso region, with Abu Musab, ISWAP leader, increasingly assuming regional roles and responsibilities, strengthening its recruitment drive, facilitating investments in drone and communication technologies, and enabling the maintenance of supply chains even in challenging terrains.

New wave of mass displacement

As Borno State is shutting down Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps in the state capital, thousands of resettled displaced communities continue to flee their homes in Marte, Dikwa, Rann, and surrounding communities. Aid groups are bracing for a new wave of IDPs. 

Newly resettled displaced people from the Muna camp in Maiduguri, who arrived in Dikwa about a day before the attack, said they heard sporadic gunshots throughout the night, with the women having to run into the nearby forest areas for cover. Large groups of people are fleeing the town again, barely 72 hours after being resettled in the town. They also told HumAngle that there are no security officials there to guard them. 

“We hardly sleep,” one resident said. “We are constantly worried about when the insurgents will come again, especially with the gunshots we hear. Yesterday, we could only sleep around 3 a.m.”

“Some individuals are seeking refuge in Cameroon, while others are relocating to any available host communities, as there are currently no provisions for IDP camps, unlike the situation five to ten years ago,” stated a member of the Civilian JTF.

The constant withdrawal of soldiers from their strategic outposts and their capture has rattled the ranks and file. Troops now face an opponent that not only improvises but also innovates.

The military confrontation India and Pakistan has ended. At least for now, there is no noticeable escalation, exchanges of fire, or use of artillery on the line of contact. The day before, President Donald Trump announced that India and Pakistan, with the mediation of the United States, had agreed to an immediate and complete ceasefire. “After a long night of negotiations, mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a complete and immediate ceasefire,” Donald Trump said. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had recently called both Pakistani and Indian officials, offering to mediate the talks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the British Foreign Secretary played a key role in reaching the ceasefire agreement. Secretary Rubio thanked the two prime ministers, Narendra Modi and Shahbaz Sharif, for their “statesmanship in choosing the path of peace.” According to the Indian Foreign Ministry, Pakistan’s chief of military operations called his Indian counterpart, and both sides agreed to cease air, land, and sea strikes.

However, it appears that the parties did not plan for a large-scale armed conflict. Donald Trump’s statements look more like an attempt to portray himself as a peacemaker. And Pakistan’s statements about the role of the British show London’s obvious support for Islamabad. Both India and Pakistan are huge countries. However, the balance of power in the region has been established and will be entrenched for many years to come. And within this balance, India is the largest, richest, and most powerful regional hegemon in South Asia. India is six times larger, its population is approaching 1.5 billion people (first place in the world), while Pakistan’s population is about 250 million (fifth place). India is significantly richer: by GDP – about ten times (over 17 trillion dollars, or 8.5% of world GDP versus 1.67 trillion, or 0.8% of world GDP for Pakistan); by GDP per capita – almost twice (12 thousand dollars versus 7 thousand for Pakistan).

India is among the top five world leaders in military spending, with more than 86 billion dollars in 2024, while for Pakistan, this figure is about 10 billion dollars. Moreover, India is only increasing its military spending, while for Pakistan, it fell by 5% in 2024. India and Pakistan have fought three times: in 1947-1948, 1965, and 1971. All these conflicts ended in victories for Delhi. India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, an operation called “Smiling Buddha”. Pakistan received nuclear weapons in 1998. India, under Narendra Modi rule, given its increased potential, strives to play a global role and claims the role of a great power. Pakistan is a power on a completely different scale.

However, nuclear weapons have not stopped the conflict between the two neighboring countries. But it is precisely they that have so far prevented a major war from breaking out in the region. Thus, it is possible to predict with a high degree of probability the results of any large-scale conflict between the two countries. At the same time, if the presence of nuclear weapons and different levels of economic development and military potential reduce the possibility of a large-scale conflict, tension on the border is quite possible and even inevitable.

One of the signs of the likelihood of a protracted confrontation is the extremely militant mood in the societies of both countries. “Justice strikes,” declared an editorial in one of India’s leading English-language newspapers, praising the “sharp” and “resolute” response to the killing of 26 Hindus. On May 10, the conflict between the two nuclear powers reached a new level when the Pakistani government announced a major military operation against India. Explosions were heard in northern India on the evening of May 9. India then launched missile strikes on three Pakistani air bases near Rawalpindi – Nur Khan, Murid and Shorkot. As the conflict escalated along the Line of Contact in Jammu and Kashmir and on the Indo-Pakistan international border, Pakistan’s armed forces made heavy use of some 300-400 drones, manufactured and supplied by Turkey. Of the nearly 400 drones sent by Pakistan, “Indian armed forces shot down a few of these drones through kinetic and non-kinetic means,” the government said. Initial evidence from the drone debris indicates that they were from Turkey’s Asisguard Songar. Turkey did not@ condemn the terror attack on civilians in Jammu and Kashmir or offer condolences to the families of Hindu tourists killed by the terrorists, and has fully supported Pakistan.

The growing alliance between Turkey and Pakistan could become a major factor in the regional balance. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed gratitude to Turkey for its “unwavering support” for Kashmir. Immediately after the Pahalgam attack, Turkey reportedly sent a huge amount of military equipment to Pakistan to help Islamabad stockpile against any Indian action. Six Turkish warplanes were reported to have arrived in Pakistan, allegedly carrying Turkish-made weapons and military equipment – ​​reports that were denied by Ankara. Turkey could not deny the presence of its C-130 warplane, as it was detected by global air surveillance systems, but denied that any weapons had been sent.

On May 7, India launched a military operation called Operation Sindoor against, as Delhi said, “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan in response to the attack. Pakistan responded by striking targets in India and claims to have shot down several Indian fighter jets. On April 22, Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists killed 26 Hindu tourists in the town of Pahalgam, in the Indian-administered region of Jammu and Kashmir. India called its military operation Operation Sindoor, a word referring to the red powder that married Hindu women traditionally apply to their faces. The name refers to the women who were left widowed after the Pahalgam attack.

US President Donald Trump has met Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the GCC summit in Riyadh. Trump confirmed that he will lift sanctions on Syria to give the country a fresh start after the fall of the Assad government.

The BBC can help tackle a “crisis of trust” in UK society, the broadcaster’s director general has said.

Tim Davie has set out measures he says will allow the broadcaster to play a leading role in reversing a breakdown in trust in information and institutions, as well as combating division and disconnection between people.

They include expanding fact-checking service BBC Verify, giving children lessons about disinformation, and doing more to scrutinise local politicians.

“The BBC is ready to play its full part – not simply defending tradition, but shaping the future,” he said in a speech on Wednesday.

“A future where trusted information strengthens democracy, where every child has a fair start, where creativity fuels growth and social capital, and where no-one is left behind in the digital age.”

Mr Davie added: “The future of our civilised, cohesive, democratic society is, for the first time in my life, at risk.”

The speech to civic and community leaders in Salford set out Mr Davie’s vision for the corporation’s future.

The BBC’s current royal charter, which sets out the terms and purposes of its existence, expires in 2027, and negotiations with the government about its renewal are ramping up.

“We believe that we must reform faster and get more support to avoid decline,” he said.

He said he was not asking for the “status quo” in funding, and said he would “keep an open mind” about the future of the licence fee or what could replace it.

“We want modernisation and reform,” he said. But any future method of funding must ensure the BBC remains a universal service, he stressed.

“All the funding models that have been floated in the debate have their merits and drawbacks. But some such as advertising or subscription don’t pass the test of building a universal trusted public service.

“Beyond that, we keep an open mind. And we continue to actively explore all options that can make our funding model fairer, more modern, and more sustainable.”

He also called for “more help” from the government to fund the World Service, calling it a “priceless national asset”, and saying “the government should invest for significant growth, not survival”.

However, there have been recent reports that ministers are drawing up plans for cuts to World Service funding.

Mr Davie argued that the BBC could play a key part in making the UK a “global leader in trusted information”, support democracy, boost education and economic growth, and improve digital access.

The BBC’s future would involve “doubling down on impartiality, championing free, fair reporting alongside landmark investigative journalism, investing in BBC Verify and InDepth as well as increasing transparency and holding our nerve amidst culture wars”, he said.

The BBC can “help turn the tide” and improve trust by “dramatically increasing” the amound of news coverage on platforms like YouTube and Tik Tok have a stronger presence amid the online noise.

It will combine AI agent technology with BBC journalism to create “a new gold standard fact checking tool”, he said, but without relinquishing editorial oversight.

“Our aim is to work globally with other public service broadcasters to ensure a healthy core of fact-based news.”

The BBC will also:

• Expand its expand Local Democracy Reporting Service from focusing on local councils to scrutinise health authorities, police and crime commissioners, and regional mayors
• Create specialist BBC Insight teams across the UK to do more investigative reporting, and expand local BBC Verify and InDepth work
• Launch new political debate radio shows for different areas, modelled on Radio 4’s Any Questions
• Give every child “proper training on disinformation” and potentially develop qualifications in disinformation studies
• Offer offer a new BBC family account for every parent of a young child, offering support at key milestones from birth to leaving school
• Move more executive roles outside London

The BBC says it is the most trusted news provider in the UK, with 45% of the population naming it as the source they trusted the most in 2024. That is down from 57% a decade ago.

Mr Davie also called for a national plan to switch off traditional broadcast transmissions in the 2030s, and ensure a “smooth” transition to internet-only delivery of programmes.

The BBC could launch its own device aimed at people who haven’t switched to streaming, based on the existing Freely online service, Mr Davie said.

“We want to double down on Freely as a universal free service to deliver live TV over broadband.

“And we want to consider developing and launching a streaming media device with Freely capabilities built in, with a radically simplified user interface specifically designed to help those yet to benefit from IP services.”

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.”