International Day of Peace

 

A Call for Peace in a World of Conflict

Written & Research by Irfan Tariq

Every year, on 21 September, the world observes the United Nations International Day of Peace—a day dedicated to strengthening the ideals of peace, non-violence and cooperation among nations and peoples.

But Peace Day is much more than a date on the international calendar. It is a reminder of one of the most important lessons of modern history: war may be won on battlefields, but lasting peace can only be built through dialogue, law, diplomacy, justice and human cooperation.

The United Nations was born in the aftermath of the Second World War, when humanity had witnessed destruction on an unprecedented scale. Its founding vision was to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to create an international system in which disputes could, wherever possible, be resolved peacefully.

Yet nearly eight decades later, the question remains as urgent as ever:

Has humanity learned enough from its wars to prevent the next one?

From the ashes of war to a global day for peace

The International Day of Peace was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1981 through Resolution 36/67. It was initially linked to the opening of the General Assembly’s annual session, and the first Peace Day was observed in September 1982.

Two decades later, in 2001, the General Assembly unanimously adopted Resolution 55/282, establishing 21 September as the permanent date and designating the day as a period of non-violence and ceasefire. The United Nations calls on nations and peoples to honour the cessation of hostilities and to promote education and public awareness about peace.

The historical evolution of the day is significant. It moved from being a symbolic observance toward a stronger international appeal for ceasefire and non-violence.

What does peace really mean?

Peace is often misunderstood as simply the absence of war.

But peace is much broader.

The United Nations’ message for 2026 describes peace as more than the absence of war: it is connected with safety, dignity, opportunity and cooperation in everyday life. The 2026 theme is:

“Invest in Peace — For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day.”

This year’s message is particularly significant because it shifts attention from peace as something created only by governments and diplomats to peace as something also built by ordinary people.

Teachers, students, volunteers, civil society leaders, journalists, community workers, peacebuilders and young people all have a role in creating societies where differences can be addressed through dialogue rather than violence.

Peace therefore begins not only in conference rooms but also in classrooms, communities, neighbourhoods and families.

The world in 2026: why Peace Day matters more than ever

The International Day of Peace is being observed this year against a difficult international background.

Conflicts have become increasingly complex. Violence in one region can quickly produce consequences far beyond its borders. Wars generate displacement, humanitarian crises, economic disruption, food insecurity and political instability.

The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has warned in his 2026 message that violence and division are shaking communities, conflicts are growing in scale and complexity, and dialogue and global solidarity are struggling. He has called for renewed investment in diplomacy, dialogue, negotiation, peacekeeping, human rights and sustainable development.

This makes the International Day of Peace more than a ceremonial occasion.

It becomes an opportunity to ask whether the international community possesses adequate mechanisms to prevent conflicts before they become wars—and whether existing institutions are equipped to deal with the changing nature of warfare.

Peacekeeping: an important achievement, but also a limitation

One of the United Nations’ most visible contributions to international peace is its peacekeeping system.

UN peacekeepers have served in difficult and dangerous environments around the world. Their responsibilities vary according to the mandate given to each mission and can include monitoring ceasefires, supporting peace agreements, protecting civilians where authorised, facilitating humanitarian assistance and helping societies move from conflict toward peace.

But there is an important limitation.

The United Nations does not have a standing army or police force of its own.

Military and police personnel are contributed by Member States for individual operations. The Security Council establishes and reviews mandates, while the Secretary-General and UN peacekeeping structures oversee implementation.

This arrangement has enabled the UN to conduct peacekeeping for decades. But it also creates a structural challenge: when a new crisis emerges, the United Nations must depend on Member States to provide the necessary personnel and capabilities.

That raises a fundamental question for the future:

Should the United Nations continue to depend almost entirely on forces assembled for individual missions, or should the international community develop a more permanent and rapidly deployable peace capacity?

This question deserves serious discussion—not as a replacement for diplomacy, but as a possible means of making diplomacy and peace agreements more credible.

Peace is not simply the absence of shooting

A ceasefire can stop the guns, but it does not automatically resolve the causes of a conflict.

Sustainable peace requires political dialogue, justice, economic recovery, institution-building, reconciliation and respect for human rights.

A society emerging from war may require schools, hospitals, infrastructure, employment, security and political representation before peace becomes meaningful for ordinary citizens.

This is why the United Nations increasingly links peace with sustainable development, human rights and social protection. Its 2026 message stresses that peace requires investment in people, health, education, nutrition, social protection, inclusive institutions and human dignity.

The nuclear age makes peace even more urgent

The meaning of peace has also changed because humanity now possesses weapons capable of producing catastrophic destruction on a scale far beyond conventional warfare.

A major conflict involving nuclear-armed states could have consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.

At the same time, modern conflict increasingly involves drones, cyber operations, artificial intelligence, satellite systems, information warfare and autonomous technologies.

The international peace system therefore faces a new challenge.

The institutions created in the aftermath of the Second World War must now confront technologies and forms of conflict that their founders could hardly have imagined.

Peace and the Global South

For developing countries, peace is also an economic and developmental necessity.

Wars and geopolitical crises can disrupt trade routes, raise energy and food prices, increase refugee flows and divert resources away from development.

Countries that are already struggling with poverty and weak infrastructure can suffer disproportionately from international instability.

For the Global South, therefore, peace is not merely an ideal.

It is a condition for development, economic security, human dignity and a better future for younger generations.

Pakistan and the international peace agenda

Pakistan has a long history of participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

For Pakistan, the idea of international peace also has a strong regional dimension. South Asia, Afghanistan, the wider Middle East and other neighbouring regions demonstrate how quickly political disputes can become security crises with humanitarian and economic consequences.

Pakistan’s experience in UN peacekeeping, diplomacy and regional conflict gives it an important perspective in the wider international debate about the future of collective security.

The central principle remains clear:

Military power may sometimes stop violence, but only political solutions can create lasting peace.

The future of the United Nations

The International Day of Peace is also an opportunity to examine the future of the United Nations itself.

The organisation was created in 1945 in a very different international environment. Since then, the world has changed dramatically.

There are now new centres of power, new technologies, new security threats, new forms of warfare and new geopolitical realities.

The question is not whether the United Nations should remain relevant.

The question is:

How can it remain effective in a changing world?

Reform of global institutions, stronger diplomacy, more effective conflict prevention and a more credible international peace and security architecture are therefore becoming increasingly important.

Peace is everyone’s responsibility

Perhaps the most powerful message of the International Day of Peace is that peace cannot be left entirely to presidents, prime ministers, generals or diplomats.

It begins with how societies treat differences.

It begins with refusing to dehumanise opponents.

It begins with listening.

It begins with protecting human dignity.

It begins with rejecting violence when dialogue remains possible.

And it begins with recognising that another person’s security is ultimately connected with our own.

Conclusion

21 September is not simply another international day. It is a day of reflection on humanity’s greatest unfinished task.

The world created the United Nations after two devastating world wars because humanity understood that peace could no longer be left entirely to the balance of military power.

Yet today’s conflicts remind us that the work remains unfinished.

Peace requires diplomacy.

Peace requires law.

Peace requires justice.

Peace requires development.

And, where necessary, peace also requires credible international mechanisms capable of protecting agreements and preventing violence from spreading.

The message of the International Day of Peace 2026 is therefore both simple and profound:

Peace does not happen automatically. It has to be built, protected and invested in—everywhere, for everyone, every day.

Wars can redraw borders and change governments, but peace can change the destiny of generations.

And perhaps that is the greatest lesson of 21 September:

Humanity cannot merely hope for peace. It must build the institutions capable of protecting it.

• Khalilur Rahman Takes Helm of UN General Assembly

WDT

**Irfan Tariq** is a journalist, author, analyst, and Founder & Editor of **World Digital Times**, a modern digital media platform covering major developments in Pakistan and around the world, with a focus on international affairs, geopolitics, defence, foreign policy, diplomacy, global conflicts, and emerging international trends. He is the author of three books, holds a degree in International Relations and a Journalism diploma from City University London, and serves as President of the Pakistan Digital Media Journalist Federation (PDJF). Editor World digital times .com

y

• Terms & Condition

en 

Makkah Defence Alliance

 

Makkah Defence Alliance: Istanbul Meeting and the Making of a New Regional Security Architecture

Written by Irfan Tariq

History often reveals its direction not through dramatic declarations, but through the quiet creation of institutions. The first meeting of the Strategic Political and Defence Committee in Istanbul on August 31 may eventually be remembered in precisely that way: as the moment when the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement began moving from a political commitment into an organised regional security framework.

The meeting brought together the foreign ministers, defence ministers and senior military commanders of Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia, creating an unprecedented political-military platform among the three founding states. Pakistan was represented by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif and Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir. Türkiye was represented by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Defence Minister Yaşar Güler and Chief of General Staff General Selçuk Bayraktaroğlu, while Saudi Arabia was represented by Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman and Chief of General Staff General Fayyadh bin Hamed Al-Ruwaili.

The composition of the meeting itself was significant. Foreign policy, defence policy and military command were brought together within one mechanism, suggesting that the Makkah Agreement is being designed not merely as a political statement but as a framework capable of sustained strategic consultation and defence coordination.

The agreement was signed in Makkah on August 7 by the leaders of Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia. Its central collective-defence principle is that an armed attack against one of the three countries will be regarded as an attack against all. At the same time, the three founding members have repeatedly stressed that the arrangement is defensive in character, is not directed against any particular country and seeks to strengthen sovereignty, deterrence and regional stability.

The Istanbul meeting gave that principle an institutional foundation. One of the most consequential decisions was to establish a permanent secretariat in Riyadh, with the first Secretary-General to come from Pakistan for an initial three-year term. This gives Islamabad an important role in shaping the alliance during its formative period.

The decision is strategically meaningful for Pakistan. Islamabad has long maintained defence relationships with both Riyadh and Ankara. Pakistan now occupies the unusual position of being simultaneously a founding member and the country providing the alliance's first Secretary-General. This could allow Pakistan to contribute significantly to the development of procedures for political consultation, military coordination, defence cooperation and crisis management.

Türkiye brings another dimension. Its advanced defence industry, military capabilities and strategic position between Europe, the Middle East, the Black Sea and Eurasia give the alliance technological and geographical depth. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, contributes enormous economic resources, strategic geography and considerable influence across the Arab and Gulf regions.

Together, these three states form an unusual strategic triangle: Pakistan provides a South Asian anchor, Türkiye provides a bridge toward Europe and Eurasia, and Saudi Arabia provides the central Gulf and Arab dimension.

But the most important question emerging from Istanbul is no longer whether the alliance will function. It is whether it will expand.

Türkiye's Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has said that a roadmap is being prepared for additional countries to join the Makkah Defence Alliance. This indicates that the founding three do not necessarily envisage the arrangement as a permanently closed trilateral framework.

Egypt currently appears to be the most prominent potential candidate. Cairo's military weight, geographical position linking North Africa, the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and its influence in Arab affairs would substantially increase the strategic reach of the alliance. Türkiye has openly indicated that Egypt could become part of the next phase. Nevertheless, Egypt's membership should not yet be described as confirmed; Cairo still has its own political, legal and strategic considerations.

Bangladesh has also emerged as another possible candidate, with reports indicating that Dhaka is examining the implications of joining the framework. Its potential participation would give the alliance an additional South Asian dimension, although Bangladesh would have to balance such a decision against its wider relationships with India, China, the United States and other international partners.

Qatar and Kuwait are among other Gulf states that could potentially be considered in the future, while the wider Muslim world contains several countries that could find strategic value in closer defence cooperation with the three founding members. However, no definitive decision has been announced regarding their membership, and speculation should not be confused with formal commitments.

The expansion of the alliance will therefore be a delicate diplomatic exercise. Every new member would increase its geographical reach and military potential, but every additional country would also introduce new foreign-policy priorities, threat perceptions and international relationships.

This is perhaps the central strategic challenge facing the Makkah Defence Alliance. Building a large alliance is relatively easy on paper; maintaining political unity when a genuine security crisis occurs is much harder.

The collective-defence principle gives the agreement a strong deterrent message. But deterrence becomes credible only when political commitments are supported by practical mechanisms. Intelligence sharing, military exercises, interoperability, logistics, defence-industrial cooperation, technology development and clearly defined crisis-response procedures will ultimately determine whether the alliance develops into a meaningful security institution.

For that reason, the Riyadh secretariat may prove more important than any ceremonial declaration. Institutions give strategic agreements memory, continuity and operational capacity. If the secretariat develops into an effective centre for coordination rather than remaining merely administrative, it could become the engine through which the Makkah Defence Alliance gradually evolves.

The alliance also should not be prematurely described as a replacement for NATO or any existing security arrangement. Türkiye remains a NATO member, while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia maintain their own bilateral and multilateral defence partnerships. The Makkah framework is emerging within an already complex international security system and may operate alongside existing alliances rather than replacing them.

Its deeper significance lies elsewhere: in the growing desire among regional powers to assume greater responsibility for their own security. For decades, much of the Middle East's security architecture depended heavily on external powers. The Makkah initiative suggests a different idea—that regional states can build their own mechanisms for deterrence, consultation and collective security while keeping diplomacy and political dialogue at the centre.

The timing is also important. The Middle East and wider Gulf region remain exposed to geopolitical tensions, maritime security risks, military confrontations and uncertainty over the future balance of power. In such an environment, regional countries are increasingly examining how they can strengthen deterrence without creating another cycle of confrontation.

The Makkah Defence Alliance therefore carries both opportunity and responsibility. Its credibility will not be measured by the number of flags around a conference table, but by its ability to prevent conflict, protect sovereignty and manage crises without unnecessarily escalating them.

The Istanbul meeting has transformed the Makkah Agreement from an important political understanding into the beginning of an institutional process. Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia have established the core; Riyadh will host the permanent machinery; Pakistan will provide the first Secretary-General; and the door has been opened to potential new members.

The next chapter could be written in Cairo, Dhaka, Doha or another regional capital. But the larger story is already becoming visible. If the founding states can combine military capability with political wisdom, strategic deterrence with diplomacy, and collective security with respect for international law, the Makkah Defence Alliance could become more than a defence pact—it could become an important experiment in regional security ownership.

In the final analysis, the true measure of the Makkah Alliance will not be how powerful it appears when tensions are high, but how effectively it can make conflict less likely when tensions rise. That is the difference between an alliance built for confrontation and a security architecture built for peace. The Istanbul meeting has opened that possibility; the choices made from here will determine whether history records Makkah as the birthplace of another military bloc—or the beginning of a more confident, cooperative and strategically responsible regional order.

Kyrgyzstan: From the Land of Manas to an Independent State

 

Kyrgyzstan: From the Land of Manas to an Independent State — A Historic Journey and New Opportunities for Pakistan

BISHKEK: Kyrgyzstan celebrates its Independence Day today, August 31, marking the historic declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. On August 31, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the then Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic adopted the declaration of state independence, setting the country on the path to becoming a sovereign and independent republic.

This year’s Independence Day carries particular significance as Pakistan’s Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif has arrived in Bishkek on a three-day visit to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit. The Prime Minister is scheduled to participate in the SCO Plus Summit, attend the opening ceremony of the World Nomad Games as chief guest and hold bilateral meetings with Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov and other participating leaders. Discussions are expected to cover bilateral relations, trade and investment, energy, regional connectivity, education, tourism and people-to-people contacts.

But Kyrgyzstan’s story did not begin in 1991. Its history stretches back thousands of years and is deeply connected with the nomadic peoples and Turkic civilizations of Central Asia. The territory of present-day Kyrgyzstan was also part of the ancient Silk Road network, through which traders, travellers and ideas moved between China, Central Asia, Persia and the wider Middle East and Europe.

Nomadic culture remains at the heart of Kyrgyz national identity. Horses, yurts, mountains and the traditions of a mobile pastoral society continue to occupy an important place in the country’s cultural heritage. At the centre of that identity stands Manas, the legendary hero of the Kyrgyz epic Manas. While Manas cannot historically be described as the founder of the modern Kyrgyz Republic, he remains one of the most powerful symbols of Kyrgyz unity, courage, independence and national identity.

Over the centuries, the region came under the influence of different Turkic and Mongol powers. The Mongol conquests of the 13th century transformed the political landscape of Central Asia, while subsequent centuries saw the rise and decline of various khanates and regional powers. Despite these changes, Kyrgyz tribes retained their language, traditions and distinctive nomadic culture.

During the 19th century, the Russian Empire expanded into Central Asia and gradually incorporated the territory of present-day Kyrgyzstan into its imperial system. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, the region became part of the Soviet political order. In 1936, the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic became a full constituent republic of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet period transformed Kyrgyz society. Education, healthcare, infrastructure, agriculture and industrial development expanded, while urban centres grew. At the same time, political freedoms were restricted and local society became part of the highly centralised Soviet state.

Who Were the Founders of Modern Kyrgyzstan?

Unlike Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan does not have a single founding father associated with the creation of the modern state. The modern Kyrgyz Republic emerged through a long process of national, political and institutional development.

Several figures from the Soviet period are nevertheless regarded as important contributors to the development of modern Kyrgyz statehood. Among them were Zhusup Abdrakhmanov, Ishenaly Arabaev and Imanaly Aidarbekov, who played important roles in the development of Kyrgyz national identity, education, political institutions and state administration.

After independence, Askar Akayev became the first president of independent Kyrgyzstan. He had already served as president of Soviet Kyrgyzstan and subsequently played a central role in establishing the institutions and foreign policy of the newly independent republic.

The Moment of Independence

The final years of the Soviet Union brought profound political change across its constituent republics. As Moscow’s authority weakened and demands for sovereignty intensified, Kyrgyzstan moved towards independence.

On August 31, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Kyrgyzstan adopted the Declaration of State Independence, proclaiming the republic an independent and sovereign state.

Kyrgyzstan was therefore among the Soviet republics that declared independence before the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of December 1991.

After independence, the country began building its own constitutional, political and economic institutions. A new constitution was adopted in 1993, while Kyrgyzstan joined the United Nations in 1992.

The transition was not without turbulence. Kyrgyzstan experienced economic difficulties, political struggles and several major popular uprisings. The Tulip Revolution of 2005 forced President Askar Akayev from office. Another political crisis in 2010 resulted in a change of government, while the country again experienced major unrest following disputed elections in 2020.

Today, Kyrgyzstan is led by President Sadyr Japarov, who has sought to strengthen state institutions and define a new political and economic direction for the country.

Geography: Kyrgyzstan’s Strategic Advantage

Kyrgyzstan may not be one of Central Asia’s largest countries by territory or population, but its geography gives it considerable strategic importance.

It shares borders with China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Much of the country is mountainous, with the spectacular Tian Shan mountain system covering a large part of its territory.

The country is internationally recognised for its spectacular landscapes, including Lake Issyk-Kul, one of the most famous natural landmarks of Central Asia. Mountains, lakes, horses and nomadic traditions have also given Kyrgyzstan considerable potential as a regional tourism destination.

The country possesses significant hydropower potential because of its mountainous terrain and extensive river systems. Energy development, therefore, remains an important part of Kyrgyzstan’s economic future and regional cooperation.

Between China, Russia and Central Asia

Modern Kyrgyzstan occupies a sensitive geopolitical position between major powers and regional blocs.

Russia remains an important partner because of longstanding economic, security and people-to-people links. At the same time, China has become an increasingly important economic partner through trade, infrastructure investment and regional connectivity projects.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has further increased the strategic importance of Central Asian transport corridors. Roads, border crossings, energy projects and potential railway connections could strengthen Kyrgyzstan’s position as a bridge between China and the wider Central Asian region.

The SCO and Pakistan’s Opportunity

Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, bringing it into the same regional framework as Pakistan, China, Russia, India, Iran and the Central Asian states.

This makes Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s current visit particularly important for Pakistan. Islamabad has increasingly focused on strengthening economic and strategic links with Central Asia, and Kyrgyzstan can play an important role in that strategy.

There is considerable potential for cooperation in trade, energy, education, tourism and regional connectivity. Pakistan’s ports on the Arabian Sea, including Karachi and Gwadar, offer Central Asian countries potential access to international maritime trade, while Kyrgyzstan’s geographic position provides Pakistan with another potential partner in expanding its links with Central Asia.

If the two countries can convert their geographic advantages into practical economic projects, Pakistan could become a useful maritime gateway for Kyrgyzstan and the wider Central Asian region, while Kyrgyzstan could provide Pakistan with another important route into the heart of Central Asia.

Independence Day and the Kyrgyzstan of Tomorrow

August 31 is more than a national holiday for Kyrgyzstan. It represents a long historical journey—from ancient nomadic societies and the Silk Road to the Soviet era, and from a Soviet republic to an independent modern state.

The symbolism is particularly strong this year. As Bishkek celebrates Independence Day, leaders from across the region and beyond are gathering in the same city for the SCO Summit. Kyrgyzstan’s ancient heritage and its modern geopolitical role are therefore meeting at the same moment.

On one side stands the legacy of Manas, the nomadic traditions and the struggle for national identity. On the other are the SCO, China, Russia, Pakistan, Central Asian connectivity, emerging trade corridors and a rapidly changing international order.

Kyrgyzstan’s history demonstrates how geography can become a country’s greatest strategic asset. From the caravans of the ancient Silk Road to modern economic corridors, this mountainous nation has repeatedly served as a bridge between regions and civilizations.

For Pakistan, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit provides an opportunity to turn that historical and geographical connection into a stronger economic and diplomatic partnership. Greater cooperation in trade, energy, education, tourism and regional connectivity could take Pakistan-Kyrgyzstan relations beyond traditional diplomacy and towards a practical partnership benefiting both countries and the wider Central Asian region.

Kyrgyzstan’s Independence Day is ultimately a celebration of a nation that has preserved its ancient identity while building a modern state—and which today is seeking a new place in the changing economic, strategic and diplomatic landscape of Central Asia.

کرغزستان: ماناس کی سرزمین سے آزاد ریاست تک، ایک تاریخی سفر اور پاکستان کے لیے نئی شراکت داری کے امکانات

بشکیک: وسطی ایشیا کے قلب میں واقع کرغزستان آج 31 اگست کو اپنا یومِ آزادی منا رہا ہے۔ اسی روز 1991 میں اس وقت کی کرغز سوویت سوشلسٹ جمہوریہ کی سپریم سوویت نے ریاستی آزادی کا اعلان منظور کرتے ہوئے کرغزستان کو ایک آزاد، خودمختار اور جمہوری ریاست قرار دیا تھا۔ (iacis.ru)

یہ دن اس سال اس اعتبار سے بھی خاص اہمیت رکھتا ہے کہ پاکستان کے وزیراعظم محمد شہباز شریف تین روزہ دورے پر کرغزستان کے دارالحکومت بشکیک پہنچے ہیں، جہاں وہ شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم (SCO) کے سربراہی اجلاس میں شرکت کریں گے۔ وزیراعظم SCO Plus اجلاس سے بھی خطاب کریں گے، ورلڈ نومیڈ گیمز کی افتتاحی تقریب میں بطور مہمانِ خصوصی شرکت کریں گے اور کرغزستان کے صدر صادر ژاپاروف سمیت مختلف ممالک کے رہنماؤں سے دوطرفہ ملاقاتیں کریں گے۔ ان ملاقاتوں میں تجارت، سرمایہ کاری، توانائی، علاقائی روابط، تعلیم، سیاحت اور عوامی روابط سمیت باہمی دلچسپی کے امور زیرِ بحث آنے کی توقع ہے۔

کرغزستان کی داستان تاہم صرف 1991 سے شروع نہیں ہوتی۔ موجودہ کرغزستان کی سرزمین اور کرغز قوم کی تاریخ کئی ہزار سال پر محیط ہے۔ وسطی ایشیا کے اس پہاڑی خطے میں مختلف خانہ بدوش قبائل اور ترک اقوام آباد رہیں اور یہی علاقہ قدیم شاہراہِ ریشم کے اہم راستوں کا حصہ بھی رہا۔ چین، وسطی ایشیا، ایران اور مغربی دنیا کو ملانے والے تجارتی راستوں نے اس خطے کو صدیوں تک تہذیبوں، تاجروں اور ثقافتوں کے درمیان ایک قدرتی پل بنائے رکھا۔

کرغز قومی شناخت میں خانہ بدوش روایت کو بنیادی حیثیت حاصل ہے۔ گھوڑا، یورت، پہاڑ اور آزاد خانہ بدوش زندگی آج بھی کرغز ثقافت کی نمایاں علامتیں ہیں۔ اس قومی شناخت کا سب سے بڑا ثقافتی استعارہ ماناس ہے، جو کرغز عوام کی عظیم رزمیہ داستان Epic of Manas کا مرکزی ہیرو ہے۔ ماناس کو جدید ریاست کا بانی کہنا تاریخی طور پر درست نہیں، لیکن کرغز قومی شعور میں وہ اتحاد، بہادری، آزادی اور قومی شناخت کی علامت سمجھا جاتا ہے۔

صدیوں کے دوران اس خطے پر مختلف ترک اور منگول طاقتوں کا اثر رہا۔ تیرہویں صدی میں منگول فتوحات نے وسطی ایشیا کے سیاسی نقشے کو بدل دیا، جبکہ بعد کے ادوار میں مختلف خانیتوں اور علاقائی طاقتوں نے یہاں حکمرانی کی۔ ان مسلسل سیاسی تبدیلیوں کے باوجود کرغز قبائل نے اپنی زبان، روایات اور خانہ بدوش ثقافت کو برقرار رکھا۔

انیسویں صدی میں روسی سلطنت نے وسطی ایشیا میں اپنا اثر بڑھانا شروع کیا اور بالآخر موجودہ کرغزستان کا بڑا حصہ روسی سلطنت میں شامل ہوگیا۔ 1917 کے روسی انقلاب کے بعد خطہ سوویت نظام کا حصہ بنا اور بالآخر 1936 میں کرغیز سوویت سوشلسٹ ریپبلک سوویت یونین کی ایک مکمل وفاقی جمہوریہ بن گئی۔

سوویت دور نے کرغزستان کی سماجی اور معاشی ساخت کو بڑی حد تک تبدیل کیا۔ تعلیم، صحت، صنعت، زراعت، بنیادی ڈھانچے اور شہری مراکز میں ترقی ہوئی، لیکن اس کے ساتھ سیاسی آزادی محدود رہی اور مقامی معاشرہ سوویت ریاست کے مرکزی نظام کا حصہ بن گیا۔

جدید کرغزستان کے بانی کون ہیں؟

کرغزستان کے حوالے سے ایک اہم تاریخی نکتہ یہ ہے کہ اسے پاکستان کی طرح کسی ایک شخصیت کا قائم کردہ ملک قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔ جدید کرغز ریاست کئی دہائیوں پر محیط سیاسی اور قومی ارتقا کا نتیجہ ہے۔

البتہ جدید کرغز ریاست کے قیام میں کردار ادا کرنے والی شخصیات میں ژوسپ عبدراخمانوف، ایشینالی عربایف اور ایمانالی ایداربیکوف جیسے سوویت دور کے کرغز رہنماؤں کا نام نمایاں کیا جاتا ہے۔ ان شخصیات نے کرغز قومی شناخت، تعلیم، سیاسی اداروں اور ریاستی نظم کی تشکیل میں اہم کردار ادا کیا۔

بعد کے دور میں عسکر اکایف جدید آزاد کرغزستان کے پہلے صدر بنے اور آزادی کے ابتدائی برسوں میں ریاستی اداروں اور نئی خارجہ پالیسی کی تشکیل میں مرکزی کردار ادا کیا۔ وہ 1990 میں سوویت کرغزستان کے صدر منتخب ہوئے اور آزادی کے بعد بھی ملک کے پہلے صدر کی حیثیت سے منصب پر رہے۔ (Wikipedia)

آزادی کا فیصلہ کن لمحہ

سوویت یونین کے آخری برسوں میں ماسکو کی مرکزی طاقت کمزور پڑنے لگی اور مختلف سوویت جمہوریاؤں میں خودمختاری کی تحریکیں مضبوط ہوئیں۔ اسی ماحول میں 31 اگست 1991 کو کرغزستان کی سپریم سوویت کے غیر معمولی اجلاس نے ریاستی آزادی کا اعلان منظور کیا۔ اس تاریخی فیصلے کے ساتھ کرغز جمہوریہ کو آزاد، خودمختار اور جمہوری ریاست قرار دیا گیا۔ (iacis.ru)

کرغزستان ان سوویت جمہوریاؤں میں شامل تھا جنہوں نے سوویت یونین کے باضابطہ خاتمے سے پہلے آزادی کا اعلان کیا۔ سوویت یونین کا رسمی خاتمہ دسمبر 1991 میں ہوا۔

آزادی کے بعد کرغزستان نے ایک نئی ریاست کے طور پر اپنے سیاسی، معاشی اور آئینی ادارے تشکیل دیے۔ 1993 میں نیا آئین منظور کیا گیا، جبکہ 1992 میں ملک اقوام متحدہ کا رکن بن گیا۔

آزادی کا سفر تاہم مکمل طور پر ہموار نہیں رہا۔ ملک نے سیاسی کشمکش، اقتصادی مشکلات اور بڑے عوامی احتجاج دیکھے۔ 2005 کی Tulip Revolution کے نتیجے میں صدر عسکر اکایف اقتدار سے الگ ہوئے، جبکہ 2010 میں ایک اور سیاسی بحران کے نتیجے میں حکومت تبدیل ہوئی۔ 2020 میں بھی انتخابات کے بعد بڑے پیمانے پر سیاسی احتجاج نے ملک کے اقتدار کے ڈھانچے کو متاثر کیا۔

آج کرغزستان کی قیادت صدر صادر ژاپاروف کر رہے ہیں اور ملک ایک نسبتاً فعال مگر پیچیدہ سیاسی نظام کے ساتھ اپنے مستقبل کی سمت متعین کر رہا ہے۔

جغرافیہ: کرغزستان کی اصل تزویراتی طاقت

کرغزستان رقبے اور آبادی کے اعتبار سے خطے کی بڑی ریاست نہیں، لیکن اس کا جغرافیہ اسے غیر معمولی اہمیت دیتا ہے۔ اس کی سرحدیں چین، قازقستان، ازبکستان اور تاجکستان سے ملتی ہیں۔ ملک کا بڑا حصہ پہاڑی ہے اور عظیم تیان شان پہاڑی سلسلے کا اہم حصہ کرغزستان میں واقع ہے۔

دنیا بھر میں کرغزستان کی شناخت اس کی خوبصورت جھیل اِسّک کُل، بلند پہاڑوں، خانہ بدوش ثقافت اور گھوڑوں سے جڑی روایات کے باعث بھی ہے۔ قدرتی حسن کے ساتھ ساتھ یہی جغرافیہ ملک کو سیاحت اور علاقائی رابطہ کاری کے لیے بھی اہم بناتا ہے۔

توانائی کے شعبے میں بھی کرغزستان کے پاس خاص طور پر پن بجلی کے وسیع امکانات موجود ہیں۔ پہاڑی دریاؤں اور آبی وسائل کے باعث ہائیڈرو پاور ملک کی معیشت اور مستقبل کے علاقائی توانائی تعاون میں اہم کردار ادا کر سکتی ہے۔

چین، روس اور وسطی ایشیا کے درمیان ایک پل

آج کا کرغزستان روس، چین اور وسطی ایشیا کے درمیان ایک اہم تزویراتی مقام رکھتا ہے۔ روس کے ساتھ اس کے تاریخی، اقتصادی اور سلامتی کے روابط گہرے ہیں، جبکہ چین گزشتہ برسوں میں تجارت، انفراسٹرکچر اور سرمایہ کاری کے حوالے سے ایک اہم شراکت دار بن چکا ہے۔

چین کے Belt and Road Initiative اور وسطی ایشیا میں بڑھتی ہوئی رابطہ کاری نے کرغزستان کی جغرافیائی اہمیت مزید بڑھا دی ہے۔ مستقبل میں سڑکوں، ریلوے، سرحدی گزرگاہوں، توانائی اور تجارتی راہداریوں کی ترقی کرغزستان کو خطے کے اہم رابطہ مراکز میں تبدیل کر سکتی ہے۔

SCO اور پاکستان کے لیے اہمیت

کرغزستان شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم کا رکن ہے اور اسی پلیٹ فارم پر پاکستان، چین، روس، بھارت، ایران، وسطی ایشیا اور دیگر ممالک ایک ہی علاقائی فریم ورک میں موجود ہیں۔ اس لیے وزیراعظم شہباز شریف کا بشکیک دورہ محض ایک سفارتی دورہ نہیں بلکہ پاکستان کی وسطی ایشیا کے ساتھ بڑھتی ہوئی رابطہ کاری کی پالیسی کے تناظر میں بھی اہم ہے۔

پاکستان اور کرغزستان کے درمیان تجارت، توانائی، تعلیم، سیاحت اور عوامی روابط کے ساتھ ساتھ علاقائی رابطہ کاری میں وسیع امکانات موجود ہیں۔ پاکستان کے پاس بحیرہ عرب اور بالخصوص کراچی و گوادر کے ذریعے وسطی ایشیائی ممالک کو عالمی سمندری تجارت سے جوڑنے کی صلاحیت ہے، جبکہ کرغزستان چین اور وسطی ایشیا کے درمیان ایک اہم زمینی مقام رکھتا ہے۔

اگر دونوں ممالک اپنے جغرافیائی فوائد کو مربوط اقتصادی حکمتِ عملی میں تبدیل کر سکیں تو پاکستان کرغزستان اور وسیع تر وسطی ایشیا کے لیے ایک اہم سمندری تجارتی دروازہ بن سکتا ہے، جبکہ کرغزستان پاکستان کے لیے وسطی ایشیا تک رسائی کا ایک اہم زمینی شراکت دار ثابت ہو سکتا ہے۔

آج کا یومِ آزادی اور کل کا کرغزستان

31 اگست کرغزستان کے لیے صرف ایک قومی تعطیل نہیں بلکہ ایک طویل تاریخی سفر کی علامت ہے—قدیم خانہ بدوش قبائل سے سوویت دور تک، شاہراہِ ریشم سے جدید علاقائی رابطہ کاری تک اور سوویت جمہوریہ سے ایک خودمختار قومی ریاست تک۔

آج جب بشکیک میں کرغزستان اپنا یومِ آزادی منا رہا ہے اور اسی شہر میں شنگھائی تعاون تنظیم کے سربراہی اجلاس کے لیے خطے اور دنیا کے رہنما جمع ہیں تو ماضی اور مستقبل ایک ہی منظرنامے میں دکھائی دیتے ہیں۔ ایک طرف ماناس کی قدیم قومی داستان، خانہ بدوش ورثہ اور آزادی کی تاریخی جدوجہد ہے، تو دوسری طرف SCO، چین، روس، پاکستان، وسطی ایشیا، نئی تجارتی راہداریاں اور بدلتی ہوئی عالمی سیاست ہے۔

کرغزستان کی تاریخ اس حقیقت کی گواہ ہے کہ جغرافیہ بعض اوقات کسی ملک کی سب سے بڑی طاقت بن جاتا ہے۔ قدیم شاہراہِ ریشم کے قافلوں سے لے کر آج کی جدید اقتصادی راہداریوں تک، یہ پہاڑی ریاست مسلسل تہذیبوں اور خطوں کے درمیان ایک پل رہی ہے۔

پاکستان کے لیے موجودہ دورہ اسی تاریخی حقیقت کو ایک نئے اقتصادی اور سفارتی موقع میں تبدیل کرنے کی کوشش ہے۔ اگر تجارت، توانائی، تعلیم، سیاحت اور علاقائی رابطہ کاری کے منصوبے عملی شکل اختیار کرتے ہیں تو پاکستان اور کرغزستان کے تعلقات روایتی سفارت کاری سے آگے بڑھ کر ایک ایسی شراکت داری میں تبدیل ہو سکتے ہیں جس کا فائدہ نہ صرف دونوں ممالک بلکہ پورے وسطی ایشیائی خطے کو پہنچے۔

یومِ آزادیِ کرغزستان دراصل ایک ایسی قوم کے سفر کی یاد ہے جس نے اپنی قدیم شناخت کو محفوظ رکھتے ہوئے جدید ریاست کا راستہ اختیار کیا—اور آج وہی ریاست وسطی ایشیا کے بدلتے ہوئے جغرافیائی، اقتصادی اور سفارتی نقشے میں ایک نئی جگہ بنانے کی کوشش کر رہی ہے۔