Opinions

Atta Haq

Starting a family should bring hope, happiness and excitement. It should never leave someone afraid of losing their job. The Prime Minister’s message about protecting pregnant women and new parents deserves our appreciation and support. It expresses a principle that should unite us: nobody should face unfair treatment because they are becoming a parent.
I welcome the caring approach behind this statement. Government should understand the pressures people face in their everyday lives. For an expectant mother, worrying about employment can add another burden at a time when she needs reassurance, stability and respect. Protecting her place at work means protecting her dignity and her family’s future.
The government has announced stronger dismissal safeguards, planned for October 2027. These would require employers to consider reasonable alternatives before dismissing pregnant employees and eligible new parents. The announced protections also cover adoption, shared parental, neonatal care and bereaved partner’s paternity leave. This recognises that families experience parenthood in different circumstances. (gov.uk)
These plans deserve encouragement because fairness must be more than a promise. It must shape what happens in offices, factories, shops and every other workplace. A woman who has spent years building her career should feel confident that pregnancy will not make her contribution less valued.
Supporting mothers also supports women’s empowerment. Financial independence gives women greater freedom to make choices and plan their lives. When women can continue their careers alongside family responsibilities, their skills and experience remain part of our shared progress. Children, households and communities can all benefit from that security.
We should also recognise responsible employers who already treat staff with care. Their example shows that business success and respect for working families can grow together. Clear guidance and practical support will help employers understand the changes and prepare properly. Cooperation will be essential to making these protections work well.
As citizens, we have a responsibility too. We should encourage respectful workplaces, challenge discrimination and help people find reliable information about their rights. Community organisations, trade unions and business leaders can support this effort by bringing people together and listening to parents’ experiences.
I believe we should stand behind our government when it takes positive steps towards fairness. Supporting this direction means helping turn a worthy aim into everyday improvements. It also means remaining engaged, offering constructive ideas and ensuring that the voices of working families continue to guide delivery.
Unity does not require everyone to share the same political opinion. It begins with recognising a common purpose. Whatever our background, we can agree that raising a child should not expose a parent to unfair treatment or unnecessary insecurity.
The Prime Minister’s message presents a vision worth supporting: a Britain where work and family life can develop together. Let us welcome that ambition and contribute to its success. By working together with patience, responsibility and compassion, we can help build a country where parents feel respected, employers understand their responsibilities and every child begins life in a family with greater confidence about tomorrow. That is positive change we should support together.

Dr. Shahzad Qureshi

Success means more when it helps others move forward. A strong community is one where people support each other, celebrate achievements together and make sure everyone has a chance to be heard.
Professor Dr Shahzad Qureshi captures this idea in a simple message: “The strongest communities are built when success is shared and every voice is valued.”
These words remind us that progress should reach beyond one person, one family or one organisation. When knowledge, opportunities and resources are shared, more people can build better lives. Their progress, in turn, strengthens the whole community.
We often measure success through money, qualifications, awards or professional positions. These achievements deserve recognition. However, we should also ask what we do with our success. Do we guide a young person? Support a struggling neighbour? Create an opportunity for someone who needs a fresh start?
A successful business owner can offer work experience. A teacher can encourage a child who lacks confidence. A doctor can help people understand their health. A community leader can bring people together and listen carefully to their concerns. Each contribution matters.
Sharing success does not always require money. Sometimes, giving time is just as valuable. A conversation, useful advice or a simple introduction can help someone take an important step. Small acts of support can create lasting change.
Valuing every voice is equally important. Communities include people of different ages, cultures, faiths and experiences. Each person sees life from a different position. Listening to these views helps us understand problems more clearly and find fairer solutions.
Young people need space to share their ideas. Older people deserve respect for their experience. Women should have equal opportunities to lead. People living with disabilities must be included in decisions that affect them. Those facing hardship should be heard with patience and dignity.
Listening also means accepting that we may not always agree. Respectful discussion allows people to raise concerns without fear of being ignored or judged. Trust grows when people know their views will receive serious attention.
Community organisations, businesses, schools and local services all have a part to play. They can work together to offer mentoring, training, food support and activities that reduce loneliness. Cooperation helps turn good intentions into practical help.
Celebrating the achievements of others also matters. Another person’s success can inspire hope, especially among children who are still discovering their abilities. Seeing someone from their neighbourhood succeed can help them believe that their own dreams are possible.
At the same time, recognition should reach the quiet helpers: volunteers, carers, parents and neighbours who give their time without expecting praise. Their daily efforts hold communities together.
Professor Qureshi’s message offers a useful guide for everyday life. We can all ask ourselves who we have helped, whose opinion we have overlooked and what we could share.
A stronger community begins with those choices. When we open doors for others and treat every person with respect, success becomes something we build together. That is how we create a future with more opportunity, belonging and hope for everyone.

Dr Mohammed Ali OBE, Founder and Chief Executive, QED Foundation

Over recent weeks, I have received a growing number of telephone calls and messages from people who are genuinely frightened about their future in Britain. Some are asking whether they should prepare to leave the country. Others fear that their children and grandchildren, many of whom were born and raised here, could one day be forced to leave.
I find this deeply troubling.
Having lived in Britain for almost 60 years and spent much of my working life promoting equality, integration and opportunities for disadvantaged communities, I want to offer some perspective, reassurance and common sense.
Recent reports of offensive remarks about ethnic minority communities, including comments attributed to some Reform UK representatives, have understandably caused alarm. Such comments must be challenged. However, we must distinguish between political rhetoric and the laws that govern our country.
There is no general policy requiring British citizens of immigrant heritage to leave Britain. British citizenship carries important legal protections. People cannot simply be deported because of their ethnicity, religion or family background. Although citizenship law contains limited exceptions, the frightening suggestion that entire generations of British families could simply be removed from the country is misleading.
It is perfectly legitimate in a democracy to debate immigration levels and policy. It is not legitimate to make millions of settled British citizens feel that their citizenship, identity and belonging are conditional.
Immigration is part of British history
Anti-immigrant hostility is nothing new—but neither is immigration itself.
In his important history Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain, Robert Winder shows that migration is not a recent interruption to British history. It is one of the forces that created and continually reshaped Britain.
Romans, Normans, Huguenots, Irish labourers, Jewish refugees and, more recently, people from the Caribbean, Africa and South Asia have all contributed to the country Britain has become.
Winder also identifies a recurring pattern. Each new group of arrivals was initially treated by some people as alien, threatening or incapable of belonging. Over time, however, their skills, enterprise, culture and public service became woven into the fabric of British life. People once described as foreigners—and their children and grandchildren—became an inseparable part of the nation.
This longer historical perspective is important today. Jewish and other immigrant communities faced considerable prejudice during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the 1960s, Enoch Powell’s inflammatory rhetoric created widespread anxiety. During the 1970s, the National Front marched through British streets, spreading hostility towards Asian and Black communities. Similar movements have emerged in subsequent decades.
Yet Britain continued to change, develop and become more diverse.
Successive generations of immigrants established businesses, staffed hospitals, worked in factories, drove buses and trains, built homes and places of worship, served in the Armed Forces and entered universities. Their children and grandchildren became teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists, councillors, parliamentarians and leaders in almost every part of British society.
I arrived in Britain from Pakistan in 1969, aged 12. I have witnessed prejudice and discrimination, but I have also witnessed remarkable progress. The Britain of today offers opportunities that would have seemed unimaginable when I first arrived. We should never forget how far we have come.
Britain continues to need immigrants
In 2007, economist Philippe Legrain published an important book entitled Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them. His central argument remains relevant: immigration is not simply a burden on receiving countries. Migrants contribute skills, enterprise, labour, innovation and economic growth.
Britain depends significantly on migrant workers in healthcare, social care, hospitality, transport, construction, technology, agriculture and many other sectors. The National Health Service, in particular, could not function as it does without people who were born overseas or whose parents came to Britain from other countries.
We also face a demographic challenge. As our population ages, Britain needs sufficient numbers of working-age people to sustain economic activity, pay taxes and help finance pensions, healthcare and services for older generations.
Immigration is not the only answer. Britain must also invest much more effectively in education, apprenticeships, vocational training and productivity. We must help people already living here to develop their skills and participate fully in the economy. But pretending that migrants are unnecessary ignores economic and demographic reality.
Migrants have helped to make Britain prosperous, and their contribution remains important to its future.
Do not let social media frighten you
One of my greatest concerns is the growing influence of sensational material circulating on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and WhatsApp.
A frightening video can reach thousands of people within hours. An inflammatory statement is repeated, exaggerated and presented as evidence that mass deportations are imminent. Too often, people accept such claims without checking whether they are true.
My advice is straightforward: do not allow anonymous commentators and social-media personalities to determine how you feel about your future.
Check information against reliable news organisations, official government guidance and appropriately qualified advisers. Do not forward alarming messages without first confirming their accuracy. Fear spreads quickly, but facts deserve equal attention.
What unites us is stronger than what divides us
There are encouraging signs that the values uniting British people remain stronger than the issues dividing us.
Writing in Third Sector, Adeela Warley, Chief Executive of CharityComms, highlighted research by Public First suggesting that people from different political, social and regional backgrounds continue to share fundamental values such as fairness, hard work and community.
These are precisely the values that generations of immigrant families have embraced and contributed to Britain. We should build on what unites us rather than allow those spreading division and fear to define our future.
Our future is here
Britain has strong equality legislation protecting people against discrimination based on race and religion. Freedom of religion, expression and association are fundamental features of our democratic society.
These protections are not perfect, and discrimination has certainly not disappeared. However, they provide important rights that communities should understand, defend and exercise.
I know that some families are discussing whether to return to Pakistan, Bangladesh or other ancestral countries. That is a personal decision, but it should be based on genuine opportunities and individual circumstances—not fear generated by political rhetoric or social media.
For many second- and third-generation families, Britain is the only home they have ever known. Their lives, education, friendships, careers and futures are here. Where exactly are they supposed to “go back” to?
My message, particularly to British Muslim and other ethnic minority communities, is simple: remain confident in your place in British society.
Encourage your children and grandchildren to obtain the best possible education, pursue apprenticeships and professional careers, establish businesses and participate fully in public life. Explore opportunities across every profession and sector. Build friendships and partnerships beyond your immediate communities.
Do not withdraw from British society. Become more involved in it.
Register to vote. Serve as school governors, magistrates, trustees and councillors. Join professional bodies and community organisations. Enter professions and institutions in which ethnic minorities remain underrepresented. Make your voices heard calmly, constructively and confidently.
Integration does not mean abandoning our faith, culture or heritage. It means participating fully in the life of the country while respecting the rights and identities of others.
I have lived here for almost six decades. Despite its imperfections, I continue to regard Britain as one of the best countries in the world in which to live, work, raise a family and practise one’s faith.
We should challenge racism wherever it appears, but we should not live in constant fear of it.
As Robert Winder’s history reminds us, Britain has never been a fixed or ethnically uniform country. It has been built and renewed by successive generations of people arriving, settling, contributing and belonging. We are part of that continuing British story.
We are not merely guests in somebody else’s country. We are citizens, neighbours, colleagues, taxpayers and contributors to British society.
Britain is our country. We have contributed to its past, we are part of its present, and we have every reason to be confident about our future.
We belong here.

Sheraz Khan

London: Raja Sikandar Khan is a prominent figure within the Kashmiri diaspora who continues to raise his voice in support of the Kashmir cause. He is particularly active through the Global Pak Kashmir Supreme Council (GPKSC). Under his leadership, the organisation seeks to raise international awareness of the political and humanitarian issues facing the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Its objective is to promote global dialogue on the Kashmir dispute, inform the international community about the challenges facing the region, and garner support for a peaceful resolution.
One of Raja Sikandar Khan’s key objectives is to unite the Kashmiri diaspora. He considers overseas Kashmiris to be among the most important stakeholders in the dispute. He has consistently urged the British government and Members of Parliament to play a mediating role in resolving the Kashmir issue and has highlighted the need for diplomatic intervention.
Raja Sikandar Khan and the Global Pak Kashmir Supreme Council have been actively involved in organising various events and conferences, as well as engaging with policymakers and international organisations. Their efforts focus on mobilising the Pakistani and Kashmiri diaspora, strengthening diplomatic initiatives to promote peace, and advocating for the human rights of Kashmiris. He emphasises the importance of unity among diaspora communities and continues to work towards building broader international alliances in support of the political and human rights of the Kashmiri people.
In a recent conversation, Raja Sikandar Khan shared details of plans for a peaceful rally in London on 27 October to mark “Black Day”. According to him, the rally will begin at 10 a.m. outside 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British Prime Minister, and proceed to the Indian High Commission.
27 October 1947, marks the date on which Indian forces entered Kashmir. For the Kashmiri community, this day holds symbolic significance because, in their view, the struggle that began on that date continues to this day. The people of Kashmir have continued to call for the fulfilment of their right to self-determination under United Nations resolutions, and more than 79 years have now passed since the events that gave rise to this demand. The dispute remains a fundamental issue between Pakistan and India, with the two countries having fought three wars linked to it.
Raja Sikandar Khan believes that demonstrations of this nature are extremely important in raising international awareness of the Kashmir issue. In his view, their significance remains undiminished despite the elections held in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir following India’s revocation of the region’s special constitutional status in 2019.
Raja Sikandar Khan and his organisation are actively working to ensure that as many people as possible participate in the rally. According to him, several coaches have already been booked to transport participants from different parts of the United Kingdom to London for the demonstration on 27 October. Although the Global Pak Kashmir Supreme Council is playing a significant role in organising the protest, several other organisations and groups are also expected to participate.
The number of people attending the rally and its overall impact will become clear on 27 October. However, the hope remains that the demonstration will succeed in bringing the Kashmir issue to greater international attention.

Prof Fatima Zaman

Women’s empowerment begins with the freedom to live with dignity, make choices and ask for help without fear. Mental health is central to that freedom. When women feel supported emotionally, they are better able to pursue education, build careers, care for themselves and take part in community life.
Yet many women feel pressure to keep going, whatever they are facing. They may balance paid work, childcare, household duties and caring for relatives. Some also face financial hardship, discrimination, abuse or loneliness. Behind a confident smile, a woman may be struggling and unsure where to turn.
We must stop treating emotional distress as a personal failure. Feeling overwhelmed does not make someone weak. Asking for support is a sensible and courageous step. Women deserve care because their lives and wellbeing matter, whether or not they are looking after anyone else.
Helping starts with listening. If a friend, colleague or relative seems withdrawn, worried or unusually tired, find a quiet moment to ask how she feels. Listen without interrupting. Avoid saying, “Others have it worse,” or, “Just stay positive.” Instead, ask what would make things easier.
Practical help can be as valuable as kind words. Sharing childcare, cooking a meal, helping with transport or taking on household tasks can give someone breathing space. Families should discuss responsibilities fairly, rather than assuming that women will manage everything without rest.
Women should also be supported to seek professional help when they need it. A GP can discuss mental health concerns and suitable support. Offer to help arrange an appointment or accompany her if she wishes. Respect her privacy and let her remain involved in decisions about her care.
Workplaces have an important role. Managers should make it easier to discuss difficulties privately, respond fairly to requests for flexibility and challenge bullying or harassment. A supportive workplace recognises that employees sometimes need adjustments and time to recover.
Community groups can create welcoming spaces where women meet, share experiences and learn about available services. Activities such as walking groups, creative sessions and informal gatherings can offer connection.
However, community support should complement professional care when that care is needed.
Empowerment also means having control over money, education and personal choices. Training opportunities, fair employment and accessible childcare can help women build independence. Support must include women who face language barriers, disability, insecure housing or limited access to technology.
Girls need encouragement too. Schools and families should teach them that their opinions matter, boundaries deserve respect and asking for help is acceptable. Confidence grows when girls are heard, rather than expected to remain silent or meet impossible standards.
We should be careful not to turn wellbeing into another task women must perform perfectly. Rest, exercise and social contact may help, but they cannot remove unfair treatment or replace appropriate care.
Supporting women’s mental health is a shared responsibility. By listening, sharing daily burdens, improving access to care and protecting women’s choices, we can make empowerment part of everyday life. Every woman deserves the opportunity to feel safe, valued, supported and hopeful.

Sana Kardar

Governments are often judged by their ability to balance budgets, control spending and deliver immediate results. Yet a policy that appears financially sensible today may create far greater costs for future generations. The real challenge of responsible government is not simply managing today’s finances, but understanding how today’s decisions will shape tomorrow’s society.
Political decisions are frequently made within short financial and electoral cycles. However, their consequences can last for decades. Cutting investment may reduce expenditure in the present, but it can also weaken public services, increase inequality and create problems that become more expensive to resolve.
Public health provides a powerful example. When hospitals face increasing demand, governments must respond with immediate funding, additional staff and better facilities. These measures are essential. However, many health problems begin long before a patient enters a hospital. Poor housing, inadequate education, unemployment, poverty and limited access to preventive healthcare all contribute to long-term illness. Unless these underlying causes are addressed, hospitals will continue treating problems that could sometimes have been prevented.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s influential 2020 review revealed troubling trends in England. Improvements in life expectancy had stalled, health inequalities had widened, and life expectancy had declined among women living in the most deprived areas. These findings highlight an important truth: a nation’s health depends not only on hospitals and doctors, but also on the conditions in which people live, work and grow. Investing in children offers another example of long-term thinking.
Better early education, nutritious food, safe housing and accessible healthcare can improve children’s development and future opportunities. Over time, these investments may support higher employment, stronger communities and greater economic productivity. Yet the benefits often emerge years later, sometimes under different governments and across several public departments. This makes long-term investment politically difficult, even when its wider value is substantial.
International evidence also demonstrates the importance of sustained public investment. A 2024 study published in The Lancet estimated that vaccination programmes prevented approximately 154 million deaths worldwide between 1974 and 2024. This extraordinary achievement shows what consistent scientific progress, public investment and effective healthcare systems can accomplish over generations. However, long-term investment must also be approached responsibly.
Not every preventive programme saves money, and not every expensive project delivers its promised benefits. Governments must carefully examine evidence, measure outcomes and ensure that public resources are used effectively.
The solution is not to ignore today’s financial pressures in favour of distant ambitions. It is to create a better balance between immediate needs and future responsibilities. Policymakers should evaluate decisions beyond annual budgets, encourage cooperation between departments and recognise the lasting consequences of delaying necessary action. A government may save money by postponing investment, but society may eventually pay through poorer health, fewer opportunities and greater inequality. True economic responsibility means understanding that prevention, opportunity and human well-being are investments in national prosperity.
The success of public policy should therefore be measured not only by what governments save today, but by the healthier, fairer and more prosperous future they help create. Ultimately, the greatest cost of short-term thinking may be the opportunities future generations never receive.

Prof Masood Akhtar Hazarvi

Political disagreement, criticism and satire are integral to democratic societies. Leaders must be questioned, policies challenged, and decisions openly debated. However, freedom of expression also demands wisdom, sensitivity and responsibility, particularly when religious beliefs and sacred personalities are involved. Recent remarks attributed to US President Donald Trump have raised an important question: do world leaders fully appreciate the impact of their words on the religious sentiments of millions?
According to a Reuters report, on 16 October 2026, during an election rally in Dalton, Georgia, President Trump was discussing Iran when he reportedly remarked that if someone could not remember a Middle Eastern person’s name, they could simply call them “Muhammad”, adding that there was a 65 per cent chance of getting it right. He subsequently imitated addressing several people by that name. The audience reportedly showed little reaction.
It is important to distinguish between the reported words and their interpretation. The remarks, as reported, did not explicitly insult the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The joke apparently concerned the popularity of the name. Nevertheless, the question remains: can a name carrying profound religious significance be treated as an ordinary subject of political humour without considering its wider implications?
For Muslims worldwide, the name Muhammad represents far more than a collection of letters. It embodies love, devotion, spiritual identity and an enduring connection with the final Messenger of Allah. When Muslim parents name their children Muhammad, they express their attachment to the Prophet’s exemplary life and teachings. From homes and mosques to religious gatherings and everyday conversations, this blessed name is spoken with deep affection and reverence.
The Holy Qur’an declares, “And We have raised high your mention” (94:4). This divine affirmation of the Prophet’s exalted status explains why reverence for him occupies such a central place in Muslim faith. Surah Al-Hujurat also instructs believers to observe proper respect when addressing the Prophet (49:2). Such teachings demonstrate that respect is not a superficial formality; it is an essential expression of faith and moral character.
President Trump, like any political leader, has the right to criticise governments, question policies and engage in robust political debate. Such criticism is a legitimate feature of democratic life. However, political disagreement should not become an excuse for language that risks trivialising what millions hold sacred. The distinction between criticising political positions and making religiously significant names objects of ridicule deserves serious consideration.
The name Muhammad transcends national, geographical and cultural boundaries. From Arabia to Africa, Asia, Europe and America, Muslims name their children after the Prophet because of their profound spiritual attachment to him. Millions of people bearing this name live in the United States and other Western countries. Consequently, sensitivity towards it is not merely a matter of international diplomacy; it is also a question of respecting fellow citizens and the diversity of modern societies.
We should not presume to know President Trump’s intentions. He may have regarded his remarks as harmless humour. Yet intentions alone do not determine the impact of words. When public statements cause widespread distress, responsible leadership requires reflection, clarification and, where appropriate, an apology. Freedom of expression protects the right to speak, but it does not eliminate the moral responsibility to consider the consequences.
The influence of the American presidency extends far beyond domestic politics. Statements made at election rallies can travel across the world within minutes, shaping public perceptions and influencing relations between communities. Careless language concerning religious sensitivities can deepen mistrust at a time when the international community urgently needs dialogue, cooperation and mutual understanding.
Importantly, Islam itself teaches respect for the religious sensitivities of others. The Qur’an states, “And do not insult those whom they invoke besides Allah” (6:108). This instruction establishes a powerful principle: religious provocation should be avoided because it can generate hostility and lead to further disrespect. Muslims must uphold this principle through their own conduct while expecting comparable consideration from others.
There can be no compromise on the dignity and reverence Muslims associate with the blessed name of their Prophet. Nevertheless, any response must remain peaceful, dignified and lawful, reflecting the patience, justice and excellent character exemplified by the Prophet himself. International institutions, including the United Nations, should continue promoting religious freedom, human dignity and responsible public discourse while recognising the importance of freedom of expression.
The appropriate course is straightforward: President Trump should clarify the intention behind his remarks. If his words have caused distress among Muslims, a sincere and unequivocal apology would demonstrate respect and responsible leadership. Apologising does not diminish a leader’s stature; rather, it demonstrates humility, maturity and the courage to acknowledge the consequences of one’s words.
In a world already burdened by conflict, political tensions and religious prejudice, public figures should build bridges rather than deepen divisions. Peace depends not only on treaties and diplomatic agreements but also on the language leaders use and the respect they demonstrate towards others.
Ultimately, a Muslim’s love for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) cannot be diminished by mockery or suppressed by pressure. Yet that love must also inspire a response characterised by wisdom, dignity and compassion. Respect is not weakness, and an apology is not humiliation. Both are signs of civilisation.
This is a lesson every world leader, from Washington to the United Nations, should understand: true greatness lies not merely in the power to speak, but in the wisdom to recognise the responsibility that words carry.

They have escaped the ban, but the battle for Pakistani and Bangladeshi students to study in Britain is far from over. Despite high asylum claim figures, soaring visa refusal rates and universities suspending recruitment, Pakistan and Bangladesh have avoided the UK Government’s first wave of emergency student visa restrictions. A revealing High Court judgment, however, suggests their exclusion may owe as much to political and diplomatic calculations as to immigration statistics. With tougher university compliance rules already shutting doors on prospective students, the critical question is no longer simply why these countries escaped the visa brake—but how long their reprieve will last.
The Home Office introduced an emergency brake on new Student Route applicants from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, citing concerns about asylum claims by people who entered Britain on study visas. The omission of Pakistan and Bangladesh, two major sources of international students, has raised questions about the consistency and future direction of the Government’s policy.
THE NUMBERS THAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE
Officials compared asylum claims from people whose last visa was a student visa with student visas issued to each nationality. A country could be flagged if the ratio reached 15 per cent and there were at least 100 relevant claims.
Pakistan’s large student population proved decisive. For the year to September 2025, its published ratio was approximately 13.9 per cent; the Home Office’s own calculation put it at 14 per cent—just below the threshold.
Bangladesh’s position was different. The High Court judgment says it met the threshold during the Government’s assessment in October 2025. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary deferred restrictions, citing bilateral relations and cooperation on migrant returns.
Officials reportedly considered a brake on Pakistan possible, though harder to justify. Bangladesh was deferred to a later stage. Pakistan remained below the initial numerical threshold, while Bangladesh received a diplomatic reprieve. Neither has a permanent exemption.
UNIVERSITIES ARE CLOSING THEIR DOORS ANYWAY
Avoiding a nationwide brake has not protected students from recruitment barriers. Under tighter Basic Compliance Assessment requirements, universities and other student sponsors must keep student visa refusal rates below five per cent, down from 10 per cent.
In the year to June 2026, the reported refusal rate for Pakistani student visa applications reached 18.3 per cent; Bangladesh recorded 14 per cent. Both are far above the new compliance limit.
Universities risk their sponsorship standing if refusal rates remain high. London Metropolitan University stopped recruiting in Bangladesh in July 2025. The University of Derby paused recruitment from both Pakistan and Bangladesh in March 2026, citing refusal rates well above the threshold.
Escaping a visa brake does not guarantee admission or sponsorship at a British university.
A SECOND CRACKDOWN COULD BE COMING
The judgment suggests the first four countries may be only the beginning. Officials considered a second trigger based on 500 or more asylum claims annually, potentially bringing Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria and Sri Lanka into consideration. The proposal was reportedly reserved for later phases.
No date has been announced. The existing brake is intended to last an initial 18 months, with a review expected around September 2027. Home Office statistics covering the year to September 2026 will be important. If Pakistan or Bangladesh crosses the threshold, pressure for action could intensify.
Graduate Route figures add another complication. Asylum claims from people whose last visa was a Graduate Route visa more than doubled to 5,130 in the year to June 2026. The investigation estimates that adding these claims to student-related figures would produce ratios of 21 per cent for Pakistan and 20.6 per cent for Bangladesh. These are illustrative calculations, not the official test, which excludes Graduate Route claims.
GENUINE STUDENTS MUST NOT BECOME COLLATERAL DAMAGE
The Government must prevent immigration abuse, but assess asylum claims individually. Circumstances can change after students arrive.
A fair system must distinguish deliberate misuse from genuine students and legitimate protection claims. Treating every asylum claim as evidence of abuse risks damaging students’ prospects and Britain’s reputation as a study destination.
For Pakistan and Bangladesh, the threat is not just another visa announcement. It is the gradual narrowing of opportunities through recruitment suspensions, tougher sponsorship rules and high refusal rates.
The visa brake may have been avoided—but the warning lights are flashing. The months ahead could determine whether these major South Asian markets retain their place in UK higher education.

Hamid Mir

Never thought that Maulana Fazlur Rehman would also join those demanding the release of Imran Khan. I know both since 1988. This was the time when Pakistan’s military president, General Zia-ul-Haq, dismissed his own prime minister, Muhammad Khan Junejo, on allegations of corruption. The then Chief Minister Punjab Nawaz Sharif sided with General Zia instead of standing with his party Muslim League Prime Minister Junejo. After dismissing Junejo, General Zia decided to include Imran Khan in the new government. Imran Khan retired from Test cricket in 1987, but on the request of General Zia, he withdrew his retirement. General Zia believed that if Imran Khan joined the new government, his damaged reputation would get a lot of support.
I was new in journalism. I got the news that Imran Khan has been offered to join the new government. When I contacted Imran Khan to confirm this news, instead of answering, he asked what do you think I should do? I immediately said you refuse. After listening to my advice, Khan Sahib said, “Okay, I will refuse, but don’t make news of this refusal, otherwise it will be very difficult.” I could not hold this news for long and one day I spat out the news. Khan got angry. If Imran Khan had become part of the government in 1988, he would not have won the World Cup for Pakistan in 1992.
Around that time, I interviewed a German scholar regarding the ‘Silk Letter Movement’ (Reshmi Rumal Tehreek). He explained that during the First World War, scholars from the Indian subcontinent with the assistance of Afghanistan, Turkey, and Germany had devised a ‘Berlin Plan’ to resist the British colonial government. The Silk Letter Movement was a component of this Berlin Plan, had it succeeded, India might have gained independence from British imperialism as early as 1916. Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman read this interview and, during a meeting in Lahore, spoke very highly of it. Subsequently, he arranged for a four-volume work by Maulana Syed Muhammad Mian, titled “Ulema-e-Hind ka Shandaar Maazi” (The Glorious Past of the Scholars of India), to be sent to me through an associate, so that I might gain a deeper understanding of the Silk Letter Movement. This marked the beginning of my association with the Maulana.
In 1990, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In response, the United States deployed troops to various Gulf states to defend Kuwait. Meanwhile, demonstrations in support of Saddam Hussein erupted across Pakistan. One day, Shahid Sheikh, a sports reporter for the Lahore edition of the “Daily Jang”, brought forward a statement attributed to Imran Khan. “Whoever is not with Saddam is not a Muslim.” This statement caused quite a stir, as the Pakistani government had aligned itself with Saudi Arabia rather than Saddam Hussein. It was the first time I heard Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman express praise for Imran Khan. Although my own personal view regarding Saddam differed, it became clear that both Imran Khan and Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman shared a critical stance toward the United States. In 2002, another military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, attempted to legitimise his unconstitutional regime through elections. At that time, Imran Khan served as the sole representative of his party in the National Assembly.
Asif Ali Zardari, while imprisoned in Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi, initiated an effort to install Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman as Prime Minister, positioning him against General Musharraf’s preferred candidate, Mir Zafarullah Jamali. At that time, Benazir Bhutto was in exile in Dubai, and Nawaz Sharif was in Saudi Arabia. Benazir Bhutto refused to support the Maulana, but Nawaz Sharif endorsed him as a candidate for the premiership. Among those who cast their votes for the Maulana for the office of Prime Minister was not only the Pakistan Muslim League (N) but also Imran Khan. I recall that during that period, if anyone insolently referred to Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman as “Maulana Diesel,” Imran Khan would confront them. Yet, when Imran Khan himself became Prime Minister in 2018, he began calling the Maulana “Maulana Diesel” during his political rallies. The animosity between Khan and the Maulana grew to such an extent that the Maulana labelled Imran Khan a “Zionist agent.” In 2019, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman announced a “long march” against Imran Khan’s government.
The then-Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, would frequently summon journalists to claim that Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman was working for the British intelligence agency, MI6. I once asked General Bajwa, “Why don’t you present concrete evidence against the Maulana and initiate legal action?” General Bajwa would immediately change the subject. On one hand, Bajwa would extol the benefits of establishing friendly relations with Israel, while on the other, he would brand Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman an agent of the British.
Subsequently, the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan People’s Party decided to leverage Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman against Imran Khan. The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) was formed under the Maulana’s leadership, and a campaign was launched against Imran Khan’s government. Khan tasked all intelligence agencies as well as the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) with uncovering evidence of corruption by the Maulana. General Faiz Hameed, the then-head of the ISI, would personally coordinate with a select group of journalists to plant “fake news” targeting the Maulana, effectively initiating a “media trial” against him. However, this media trial had no impact on the Maulana. Meanwhile, General Bajwa’s desire to foster ties with Israel created a rift between him and Imran Khan. Instead of granting Bajwa another extension, Khan decided to appoint General Faiz Hameed as the new Army Chief. In 2022, the opposition capitalized on the growing discord between General Bajwa and Imran Khan, successfully ousting Khan from the Prime Minister’s House through a vote of no-confidence. Following his removal from power, Imran Khan came to realize the significance of Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman; he made several attempts to forge an alliance with him, but these efforts proved unsuccessful.
Concurrently, the new ISI chief, General Nadeem Anjum, worked to distance the PML-N and the PPP from the Maulana. Ironically, the very same Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman who, in 2010, had successfully brought together religious scholars from across the country at Jamia Ashrafia, Lahore, to endorse a unanimous declaration against terrorism was now being branded an accomplice of terrorists. In the wake of that declaration against terrorism and militancy, the Maulana faced a series of consecutive suicide attacks in Swabi, Charsadda, and Quetta, yet he remained steadfast in his opposition to the use of militancy within the political sphere. It is true that both Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman and Imran Khan favoured negotiations with the Taliban government in Afghanistan, yet, despite this common ground, the Maulana refrained from becoming a political ally of Imran Khan. There was a profound lack of trust between the two, but ultimately, certain ill-advised decisions by the Shehbaz Sharif administration have brought them closer together. The Maulana states that Imran Khan along with all the women of his family has been imprisoned. Furthermore, Governor’s Rule has been imposed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Under these circumstances, he argues, there is no alternative but to resist this oppression.
Currently, social media is flooded with fabricated videos targeting Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, and he is facing threats of arrest. Having already been arrested eleven times throughout his political career, he remains prepared for a twelfth. The credit for bringing the Maulana and Khan Sahib together goes to Shehbaz Sharif. Just as Khan realized the significance of the Maulana only after being ousted from power, the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) will likely only recall the Maulana once they, too, are out of government though it is doubtful that the Maulana will fall into their trap again.

Sir Raymond Keene OBE International Chess Grandmaster and Patron of the Labour Asians Society

A leopard cannot change its spots, and Reform UK has once again revealed what I believe to be its deeply troubling political character.
Recent undercover investigations have reportedly exposed shocking remarks by individuals associated with Reform, including references to machine-gunning opponents in the Rose Garden of 10 Downing Street and placing migrants in concentration camps.
One particularly disturbing statement, referring to migrants crossing the English Channel, reportedly declared:
“They just need to be rounded up, every single last one of them, and sent to those concentration camps.”
Another individual reportedly claimed that Muslims could not be British, comparing the two identities to “oil and water”.
Such language should alarm everyone who believes in democracy, tolerance and human dignity.
References to concentration camps evoke some of history’s darkest chapters. Yet the suggestion that being Muslim is incompatible with being British is equally dangerous in its implications.
This is absolute nonsense! Britain’s historical connections with the Indian subcontinent, including modern-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, demonstrate centuries of interaction with Muslim civilisation. The British Empire encountered societies rich in culture, scholarship, architecture, traditions and political institutions.
Queen Victoria herself became Empress of India, ruling over millions of Muslim subjects.
Today, British Muslims contribute enormously to our national life as doctors, scientists, teachers, entrepreneurs, politicians, charity workers and community leaders. In my personal experience, they are overwhelmingly proud to be British.
I discovered this firsthand when I was warmly welcomed into the Labour Asians Society. Having witnessed the Conservative Party’s endless internal leadership battles, seemingly at the expense of governing Britain, I became deeply disillusioned. I briefly sought political refuge with Reform UK but soon became uncomfortable with what I perceived as its paranoia, prejudice and divisive attitudes.
I subsequently joined my Muslim friends in Labour, publicly cut up my Reform membership card and threw it into the rubbish bin, where I believed it belonged. My decision reflected something fundamental: politics should unite communities, not divide them. Modern science also challenges outdated racial thinking. The Human Genome Project established that human beings share approximately 99.9 per cent of their DNA. Traditional racial categories do not represent clearly separated biological groups.
Differences in appearance reflect ancestry, adaptation and human diversity, not superiority or inferiority. Although race is largely a social construct, racial discrimination has produced devastating consequences throughout history, particularly through colonialism and slavery.
Britain has evolved through centuries of migration and cultural exchange, from the Romans, Saxons and Normans to communities arriving from Asia, Africa and across the Commonwealth. Our national identity has never been static. There is profound irony in attempting to impose rigid definitions of Britishness upon a country shaped by diversity.
Being British is not determined by religion, colour or ancestry. It is about belonging, shared responsibilities, democratic values and respect for others. A Muslim can be proudly British, just as a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Jew or person of no faith can be.
The British Muslims I know love this country, contribute to its success and cherish its freedoms. I am proud to call them my friends. Britain’s strength lies not in excluding people because of their faith, but in bringing communities together through mutual respect, equality and unity.
That is the Britain I believe in, and the Britain worth defending.