London Post

Sajjad Azhar

Around 1,800 years ago, a king named Il ʿAzilat ruled in Hadhramaut, an ancient kingdom in what is now Yemen. An inscription discovered in the Shabwa region in the early twentieth century records the participation of an Indian delegation in a royal ceremony. These visitors were most likely merchants who traded in Yemen’s famous frankincense, carrying it to India for sale. In return, Indian traders brought silk, textiles and spices to Yemen, from where these goods travelled onwards to Africa, Rome and Europe.
This trade generated considerable wealth for ancient Yemeni kingdoms, including Saba and Himyar. Given the region’s strategic geographical position, whenever its trade routes were perceived to be under threat, powerful states and empires resorted to military expeditions to secure their interests.
In the past, these maritime routes were vital for the movement of frankincense and Indian merchandise. Today, oil, gas and industrial raw materials have taken their place. Ancient merchant vessels have been replaced by giant oil tankers and container ships, but the geography remains unchanged.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical passage for oil exports from the Persian Gulf to global markets, while ships travelling from the Gulf of Aden towards the Red Sea and the Suez Canal pass through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Although these are two separate waterways, they are closely interconnected in the global economy.
War, blockades or attacks on shipping in either passage can affect oil prices, industrial production, food supplies and freight costs in countries thousands of miles away. Ordinary people ultimately bear much of the resulting economic burden. History offers numerous examples of powerful states launching military campaigns when disruptions to international trade threatened their strategic and commercial interests.
The Long History of Securing Maritime Trade
One significant episode in the history of the Indian subcontinent occurred in 711 CE, when a merchant convoy travelling from Sri Lanka to Iraq was carrying gifts intended for the Umayyad governor Hajjaj bin Yusuf. A storm brought the vessels close to the coast of Sindh, where pirates seized their cargo. When news of the incident reached Hajjaj, he dispatched a military expedition. The campaign that followed helped transform the course of the subcontinent’s history for centuries.
Like Sindh, Yemen and the opposite African coastline have long faced challenges to maritime commerce. Powerful states repeatedly intervened militarily in attempts to control these routes and protect their commercial interests.
One of the earliest recorded expeditions was dispatched by the Roman emperor Augustus in 25 BCE. In the early sixth century, a struggle for control of maritime routes between Yemen and the African kingdom of Aksum ended in an Aksumite victory. Around this period, the Himyarite ruler Abraha rose to prominence and later launched an expedition against the Kaaba in Mecca.
In 570 CE, the Sasanian Empire brought Aksumite political dominance in Yemen to an end and established its own control over this strategically important trading region. Persian influence continued into the seventh century, followed by successive periods of Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid rule. The Mamluks subsequently emerged as a major regional power between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.
When the Portuguese began expanding their presence along the Indian coastline in the sixteenth century, they also attempted to seize Aden. During this period, however, the Ottoman Empire established control over Yemen, maintaining its presence there until 1918.
Aden’s strategic importance increased further in the nineteenth century. In 1837, pirates looted and destroyed a vessel belonging to the East India Company near the port. The incident contributed to the company’s decision to occupy Aden on 19 January 1839. British control continued for the next 128 years.
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 further increased the importance of the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait for maritime travel between Europe and Asia. Aden became particularly valuable to Britain because it lay along the sea route connecting Europe with British India. Its occupation was therefore not merely an attempt to acquire a port; it became an integral part of Britain’s wider imperial strategy centred on India.
The Strait of Hormuz experienced fewer comparable disruptions to its commercial role, although European powers also attempted to dominate it. In 1515, the Portuguese captured Hormuz, constructed a powerful fortress and imposed duties on passing vessels. In 1622, Persian forces, supported by the English East India Company, expelled the Portuguese. In subsequent centuries, British influence across the Persian Gulf expanded considerably.
Maritime Chokepoints: The Backbone of the Global Economy
The Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait are among the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints. Their significance extends well beyond the countries immediately surrounding them.
Before the current conflict, approximately 20–21 million barrels of oil and petroleum products passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the average volume in 2024 was approximately 20.7 million barrels per day, representing more than a quarter of global seaborne oil trade. The International Energy Agency (IEA) also reported that around 20 million barrels per day passed through the strait in 2025.
In addition to crude oil and petroleum products, roughly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade passed through Hormuz in 2024, with Qatar accounting for a substantial share of these shipments.
During the current crisis, oil flows through the strait have fallen sharply. Estimates cited in this article put the reduction at around 70 per cent, bringing the volume down to approximately six million barrels per day. Such a decline illustrates the vulnerability of global energy markets to disruption at a single maritime chokepoint.
The Bab el-Mandeb Strait, situated between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, connects the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea. Ships passing through it can continue towards the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean and European markets.
Continued on Page 5

Wajahat Ali Khan

Britain’s relationship with the European Union is once again a subject of political debate, but the question of whether the Prime Minister wants the country to rejoin the bloc requires a distinction between closer cooperation and full EU membership.
Since leaving the European Union in January 2020, the United Kingdom has faced continuing debates over trade, immigration, economic growth and its wider relationship with Europe. Supporters of closer ties argue that stronger cooperation could help British businesses and reduce barriers to trade, while critics of rejoining point to concerns about sovereignty and the political divisions that shaped the Brexit referendum. The central issue is whether the Prime Minister is prepared to reverse Brexit or simply wants to improve relations with European partners. Recent developments have brought the question back into the spotlight. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has indicated that Britain should reconsider its long-term relationship with the EU, arguing that Brexit has caused more harm than good. He has signalled openness to discussing a range of options, potentially including full membership, while stressing that any future decision must reflect the wishes of the British public.
A change in political direction Burnham’s position marks a shift from the more cautious approach of his predecessor, Keir Starmer. The government had previously maintained clear limits, ruling out a return to the EU single market, customs union and freedom of movement. Its immediate policy focused instead on reducing trade barriers and strengthening cooperation with European partners.
The debate is also taking place against the background of renewed economic concerns. Businesses have faced additional administrative requirements when trading with European markets, while supporters of closer integration argue that stronger economic ties could improve trade and investment. Opponents, however, warn that rejoining would involve difficult negotiations and could reopen divisions over national sovereignty and immigration.
What happens next?
The next major opportunity for progress is the planned UK–EU summit on 20 November 2026, where the two sides are expected to discuss closer strategic cooperation. Areas of potential agreement include food standards, energy and youth mobility. These negotiations would not, by themselves, mean Britain was rejoining the EU.
Full membership would require a much more substantial political and legal process, including negotiations with EU member states. It would also raise questions about the terms on which Britain could return and whether the British public would support such a move.
Conclusion
The answer is that Andy Burnham has opened the door to reconsidering EU membership, but Britain has not committed to rejoining the European Union. For now, the immediate focus is on securing closer cooperation and assessing the longer-term options. Whether this debate eventually leads to a campaign for full membership will depend on political negotiations, public opinion and the government’s future decisions.

Hamid Mir

Whether one agrees or not, the truth is that Pakistani politics revolves around a man who has been imprisoned in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail for the past three years. That prisoner is Imran Khan. On August 18, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered that Imran Khan be transferred to Islamabad’s Shifa Hospital within two days; however, disregarding this order, the Shehbaz Sharif government instead took him to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) for a brief visit before locking him back up in Adiala Jail. Sohail Afridi, the Chief Minister of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, belongs to Imran Khan’s party, the Tehreek-e-Insaf. Afridi announced a “long march” towards Islamabad to secure Imran Khan’s release.
The federal government-initiated negotiations with the Tehreek-e-Insaf to halt the march, but Afridi maintained that they would only stop if Imran Khan himself issued the directive to do so. The federal government refused to accept this stance; holding Afridi responsible for the failure of negotiations, it decided to impose Governor’s Rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The imposition of Governor’s Rule effectively means the end of Afridi’s administration, yet the long march did not come to a halt. On Sunday, Shehbaz Sharif convened a meeting of the federal cabinet and, labelling Afridi a facilitator of terrorists, decided to implement Governor’s Rule and declare a state of emergency. While the imposition of Governor’s Rule in a Pakistani province is not unprecedented, the history associated with it is deeply painful. Regrettably, this bitter history is being repeated time and again. When elections were held in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) in 1954, the Muslim League suffered defeat, and A.K. Fazlul Huq of the United Front became Chief Minister.
The federal government of Pakistan dismissed A.K. Fazlul Huq, branding him anti-state, and imposed Governor’s Rule in East Pakistan through Iskander Mirza. In the 1970 elections, the Awami League secured a majority. Instead of transferring power to the Awami League, military dictator General Yahya Khan decided to launch a military operation. Initially, Lieutenant General Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan was appointed Governor and ordered to carry out the military operation; when he refused to do so, General Tikka Khan was appointed Governor. Tikka Khan initiated the operation but failed to restore peace, leading to the appointment of General A.A.K. Niazi as Governor, who ultimately surrendered to India. Even after the breakup of Pakistan, no lessons were learned from past mistakes.
In 1973, the government of Balochistan’s elected Chief Minister, Ataullah Mengal, was dismissed, and Governor’s Rule was imposed in the province. Akbar Bugti was appointed Governor, but he parted ways with Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto after just ten months. In 1975, Hayat Muhammad Khan Sherpao, a close associate of Bhutto, was assassinated at Peshawar University; Governor’s Rule was subsequently imposed in the province after Wali Khan and his associates were accused of the murder. Former ISI officer Major General Syed Ghous was appointed Governor but failed to bring the provincial situation under control. Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remain today exactly where they stood fifty years ago. Akbar Bugti, who became Governor in 1973, was declared a traitor by the Pakistan Army in 2006 and killed in the mountains of Balochistan. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who had labelled Ataullah Mengal and Wali Khan as facilitators of the country’s enemies was sent to the gallows by the Pakistan Army in 1979.
Pakistan’s political history is ruthless. This history reveals that in 2018, Imran Khan also ascended to the premiership by riding on the shoulders of military generals. When a rift developed with these generals, Imran Khan was ousted from power, and Shehbaz Sharif was installed in the Prime Minister’s seat. The generals believed that, much like politicians such as Nawaz Sharif who in the past would strike a deal after imprisonment and leave for Saudi Arabia or the UK Imran Khan would also be unable to endure a long stint in jail. They expected him to compromise and go abroad, just as Nawaz Sharif had done; however, Imran Khan refused to become another Nawaz Sharif. Shahbaz Sharif’s government is unwilling to take the risk of releasing him; they are not even prepared to transfer him to a hospital. Had the Supreme Court’s verdict of August 18 been implemented, neither would Governor’s Rule have been imposed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, nor would the long march have taken place.
Sohail Afridi’s long march aims for Imran Khan’s release, yet Shahbaz Sharif has also initiated a long march of his own. This long march is pushing Pakistan toward a civil dictatorship. The Shahbaz Sharif government maintains that all its actions are within the bounds of the Constitution. While the Constitution mandates compliance with Supreme Court orders, they disregard it whenever it stands in their way; conversely, they champion constitutionalism whenever it serves their political agenda. Imran Khan used to do the very same thing. He imprisoned many political opponents including Shahbaz Sharif—and kept an “insolent” journalist like me under a ban for nine months, yet there is a difference. Under the Global Democracy Index, Imran Khan’s government was classified as a “hybrid regime,” whereas today, Shahbaz Sharif’s government has been categorized as an “authoritarian regime.” The imposition of Governor’s Rule and a state of emergency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have occurred at a time when Pakistan’s relations with India and Afghanistan are extremely tense. By suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, India has initiated new projects to divert the flow of Pakistan’s rivers. Meanwhile, terrorism is being perpetrated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan via Afghanistan.
Until a few months ago, Pakistan’s rulers took great pride in their role as mediators between the US and Iran, as US President Donald Trump praised them daily. Then, Trump initiated direct negotiations with Iran. Pakistan subsequently entered into a joint defence agreement with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The Pakistani government claims it will defend Saudi Arabia at all costs. While Saudi Arabia certainly ought to be defended, the Pakistani government must first put its own house in order. Pakistan has ranked first in the Global Terrorism Index for 2026. To combat terrorism, She hbaz Sharif’s government must unite all political forces. The impression must not be created that an operation is being conducted against a specific political party in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under the guise of the war on terror; such a policy will not establish peace in the province. Shehbaz Sharif’s government has become a prisoner of “Imran Khan-phobia.” This fixation has pushed Pakistan toward a form of civil authoritarianism. The government needs to break free from this “Imran Khan-phobia” and learn a lesson from the fate of former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed.

Suhail Warraich

Bulleh Shah lived through an era marked by political and economic crises; he described the rise and fall of power, the fluctuations in law and order, and social upheaval with great skill and eloquence. His words came to mind during the recent talk of an “emergency”; although he spoke of his own time, his verses seem to apply not to three centuries ago, but to the present day.
الٹے ہور زمانے آئے / کاں ککڑنوں مارن لگے / چڑیاں جرّے کھائے / الٹے ہور زمانے آئے /سچیاں نوں پئے ملدے دھکے / جھوٹے کول بہائے / الٹے ہور زمانے آئے / بلھیّا حکم حضوروں آیا / تِس نوں کون ہٹائے / الٹے ہور زمانے آئے۔
Bulleh Shah observes, “Times have changed so drastically that crows are overpowering roosters and sparrows are subduing hawks; those who speak the truth face rejection and hardship, while liars sit in the company of the powerful. When the command comes from ‘Above,’ who can avert it? Truly, the world has turned upside down.” A careful reading and understanding of Bulleh Shah’s verses illuminates the entire saga behind the imposition of the emergency. Regarding the collaboration between the political sphere and the establishment within the “hybrid” government.
The PML-N initially stalled the emergency for days, and the PPP subsequently stepped in, attempting in its own way to avert or postpone it. Yet, what is destined cannot be avoided; as Bulleh Shah put it, the command came from the divine meaning it originated from the heavens, so its implementation was inevitable. It remains to be seen what the political, administrative, and social repercussions of the simultaneous imposition of an emergency and Governor’s Rule will be. From a political perspective, the most significant point is that the Tehreek-e-Insaf has completely withdrawn from the national political system as a party. The Tehreek-e-Insaf held power in Pakhtunkhwa for nearly 13 years a tenure that, barring the interim government period, sets a record for continuous rule by the party in the province. During this time, Pervez Khattak, Mahmood Khan, Ali Amin Gandapur, and Sohail Afridi served successively as Chief Ministers. Pervez Khattak strengthened the Tehreek-e-Insaf into a robust political platform through a combination of political manoeuvring and development initiatives. While Mahmood Khan’s tenure fared slightly better than that of Punjab’s Buzdar, his term was largely characterized by a sense of impending departure, with no major achievements or significant projects accomplished.
Following the 2024 elections, Imran Khan nominated Ali Amin Gandapur as Chief Minister. Gandapur proved to be a political wizard; on one hand, he used his flute to charm the male and female serpents within the Tehreek-e-Insaf, while on the other, he used melodious tunes to appease the dragons lurking among the powerful. Yet, his wizardry could not last long. The very flute with which the “jogī” (snake charmer) had tamed those serpents fell victim to the clamour and rage of one female serpent. Then came Sohail Afridi. ‘Prisoner 804’ desired a Chief Minister for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa who would neither play the flute nor act as a wizard but rather transform into a dragon to launch an assault against the government opposing Tehreek-e-Insaf and the powerful establishment. Afridi initially played the magical flute, but the pressure was so immense that he soon broke the instrument and transformed into a dragon. He knew that dragons could easily fall prey to hunters, yet he deemed political martyrdom preferable to mere homicide; he chose that path. Now, even after facing a state of emergency, he has emerged as a more significant political figure than before.
As Chief Minister, the federal government and the establishment had already pulled the ground from beneath his feet, rendering him unable to deliver anything; thus, political martyrdom was precisely what he what he ultimately attained. The government in Pakhtunkhwa served as a safe haven for Tehreek-e-Insaf leaders across the country, and the Chief Minister by virtue of his position acted as their economic and political shield. Since the Chief Minister is an integral part of the power structure, the party’s issues and stance were represented in every meeting; such presence within the system is crucial. Being completely knocked out of the system after thirteen years is a major blow to Tehreek-e-Insaf. On the other hand, the suspension of the elected government, the imposition of Governor’s Rule, and the declaration of an emergency could herald a massive crisis. Tehreek-e-Insaf is the largest political party in Pakhtunkhwa; while in power, it possessed a political mandate regarding the fight against the Taliban. Now that the party’s government has fallen and it is absolved of that responsibility, it is likely to openly support the Taliban and militants while intensifying its verbal opposition to the military operation.
Consequently, the political ownership of the operation will shift from the provincial level to the federal level. Unlike the ANP, which stood firmly with the establishment regarding the military operation, the Tehreek-e-Insaf never took such a stance; while the Taliban launched assassination attempts against almost every ANP leader, the Chief Minister, ministers, and lawmakers of the Tehreek-e-Insaf were never targeted in this manner, owing to their weak and conciliatory position. Following the imposition of the state of emergency, the government-imposed constraints on them will vanish, allowing them to openly voice support for the Taliban and publicly oppose the operation. The country’s political situation has become increasingly grave since the emergency was declared; attempts to reach an understanding or reconciliation with the Tehreek-e-Insaf or to govern the state collaboratively have failed completely. It appears that the establishment, the PML-N, and the PPP have all come onto the same page regarding the imposition of the emergency, executing this extremely difficult political move through mutual consultation.
Although the three parties appeared united regarding the issues of Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakhtunkhwa, underlying differences remain concealed beneath this apparent consensus. The question of new provinces is the most critical issue; reports indicate that President Zardari has held high-level meetings to discuss the creation of new provinces and various alternative proposals. Despite Bilawal Bhutto’s vehement opposition, President Zardari continues to meet daily with key figures within the system. While no formula for resolving these differences has yet emerged, negotiations appear to be ongoing in a friendly rather than acrimonious atmosphere; nevertheless, a significant gap remains between the positions of the two sides. When Bulleh Shah was consulted regarding the upheaval in the political landscape, he justified the situation with the phrase “Hukam Huzooron Aaya” (The command came from the authorities). Regardless of what anyone says, these are neither normal political times nor a standard political era; the imposition of an emergency or Governor’s Rule signifies an extraordinary crisis. It must be remembered that crises are ultimately resolved through negotiation, and the key to successful negotiation is flexibility. The imposition of an emergency represents the failure of flexibility and the triumph of stubbornness and ego.

Grandmaster Raymond Keene OBE

Patron of the Labour Asians Society
World Mental Health Day, observed on Saturday, 10 October, offers humanity an opportunity to reflect upon one of the greatest paradoxes of modern civilisation. We have achieved extraordinary advances in science, technology and material prosperity, yet too often neglect the most remarkable instrument responsible for these achievements: the human mind.
Mental health is not merely a medical concern. It is a fundamental measure of our humanity, influencing individual happiness, family stability, economic productivity and national wellbeing.
More than three decades ago, I co-founded The Brain Trust Charity with the internationally celebrated thinker Tony Buzan, creator of mind mapping. Our mission was founded upon a simple conviction: intellectual potential must be nurtured, human suffering alleviated and compassion translated into meaningful action.
Professor Michael Crawford of Imperial College has long highlighted the profound relationship between brain health, nutrition and human wellbeing. The economic and social consequences of mental ill health are immense, extending far beyond healthcare expenditure into lost opportunities, diminished productivity and disrupted lives.
Depression, anxiety, addiction and other mental health conditions affect millions worldwide. Behind every statistic stands an individual, a family and a future potentially transformed by timely intervention.
We must therefore ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: what value is there in extending human life if we fail to improve its quality?
Prevention, early intervention, accessible treatment and public education must become essential priorities. Governments should recognise that investment in mental wellbeing is not simply expenditure but an investment in society’s future.
The Brain Trust approaches these challenges through integrity, innovation and inclusivity. Our organisation operates through voluntary commitment, without paid officials or individual salaries, allowing resources to be directed towards charitable objectives.
Our international network connects distinguished thinkers, professionals and compassionate individuals, combining global vision with meaningful local impact.
We believe that charity must transcend conventional fundraising. True philanthropy creates opportunities, develops partnerships and multiplies the positive consequences of generosity.
Tony Buzan taught us that the human brain possesses extraordinary potential. Yet intelligence without compassion remains incomplete. Knowledge acquires its greatest value when employed to improve the lives of others.
Our principles reject discrimination based upon disability, race, religion, gender, age or economic circumstances. Human dignity must remain universal.
On this World Mental Health Day, political leaders, healthcare professionals, charities and communities must recognise their shared responsibility. The Labour Government’s commitment to national renewal should embrace mental wellbeing as an essential foundation of hope, opportunity and social progress.
Indeed, the greatest achievement of enlightened leadership may not be the suffering it successfully treats, but the suffering it prevents.
A prosperous nation cannot be measured solely through economic growth, impressive buildings or technological advancement. Its true greatness lies in the wellbeing, dignity and opportunities afforded to its people.
The future of mental health must be built upon hope, understanding, prevention and collective responsibility.
For the human mind is our greatest resource, compassion our noblest strength, and protecting both our most enduring responsibility.
The future is not merely something we inherit. It is something we create, one mind, one compassionate action and one enlightened decision at a time.