Pakistan As A Consequence Of The Partition Of British India In 1947 – Analysis

 October 6, 2025

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic

Pakistan as a country

Pakistan is a country located in the northwest of the Indian sub-continent. It borders Iran on the west, Afghanistan on the north-west, China on the north-east, and India on the east, with the direct exit to the Arabian Sea. 

Physically, from the rest of Asia, Pakistan is separated in the north by the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and the Himalaya high ring of mountain chains. Other mountain ranges are going down on the Pakistani western side to the Arabian Sea. Below them is the long and broad valley of the Indus River. The Province of the North-West Frontier contains the strategically very important Khyber Pass, which is very high. Toward the south is the Punjab plateau. It is watered by the tributaries of the Indus River, where wheat is grown. However, to the east is the Thar Desert. It is important to stress that between the Sind Desert, which covers part of the Indus delta, and Baluchistan in the western hills, there are large reserves of natural gas and, to a certain extent, oil, which is also found in Punjab.  

Pakistan has a predominantly agricultural economy. The focal export goods are raw and processed cotton, cotton fabrics, and rice. Other agricultural products include sugar cane, wheat, and maize. Livestock-raising is important too. Textiles are an important part of the Pakistani industry and are substantially contributing to Pakistani exports. Other industries include chemicals, cement production, fertilizer, and food processing. 

Population

The inhabitants of Pakistan are about 88% Pakistani Muslims, while there are about 11% Indians (Hindi). Of all the other ethnic groups, Baluchistanis are the most numerous. Baluchistan, as a province, is the least populated. With the partition of British India in 1947 into Pakistan and India, Pakistan received a predominantly Muslim population as well as a larger number of Indians, and vice versa. In the period from 1947 to 1950, population exchange between Pakistan and India, including ethnic cleansing, reached the scale of several million inhabitants in both directions. In Pakistan, the official language is Urdu (the Muslim variant of the Hindi language), which in 1972 replaced English as the official language. However, several other local/regional languages ​​are in use. In 1970, 80% of Pakistan’s inhabitants were illiterate, which caused a lack of professional and educated staff, and this was especially felt in the administration and economy. 

For the sake of more comprehensive education and the reduction of illiteracy, in September 1972, 176 private colleges were nationalized. There were three universities in Pakistan then. About 15% of the population lived in cities, while there were 10 cities with over 100,000 inhabitants. The capital of Pakistan was Rawalpindi from 1959, while today it is Islamabad. Until 1959, the largest city in Pakistan was Karachi. Today, Pakistan has a population of 251 million in an area of ​​881,913 sq. km. The GDP is 373 billion dollars, while the GDP per capita is almost 1500 dollars.

State organization

With the division of the British colony of (British) India into two states, India and Pakistan, on August 15th, 1947, Pakistan received the status of dominion, and according to the constitution of February 29th, 1956, it became a republic – the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, composed of two federal units: West and East Pakistan.

By the military coup of October 1958, the constitution was abolished, and a new one was adopted in March 1962. This new constitution provided for a federal system of government, a presidential system of government (the president must be a Muslim and is elected for 5 years), a National Assembly of 156 deputies (78 deputies from each of the two federal units) and two capital cities: Islamabad in West Pakistan (seat of the central government) and Dhaka in East Pakistan (seat of the National Assembly). However, the constitution from 1962 was repealed on March 25th, 1969, and only partially reinstated on April 4th, 1969. 

A turning point in Pakistan’s history was the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan in December 1971, when East Pakistan declared itself an independent state under the name Bangladesh. Thus, the new state of Pakistan included only the territory of the former West Pakistan. In January 1972, Pakistan left the British Commonwealth.

A modern history of Pakistan up to the Partition in 1947

Pakistan is a country that came under British colonial control in the first half of the 19th century, when it became part of (a Greater) British India. Interestingly, its name is derived from the word “pak” (ritually pure) in the Urdu language. In other words, it means “Land of the Pure”. However, it is as well as an acronym for its most important component peoples: Punjabis, Afghans, Kashmirs, Sindhis, and the peoples of Baluchistan.

At the beginning of the 20th century, there were only a several moves towards independence. One of the reasons was that those people living in the north in Punjab and Kashmir have been great beneficiaries of the British Raj, and occupied important posts in the administration and army of British India. It was among the more disadvantaged Muslim minority in north-central India that a Muslim cultural and political identity began to form, mainly due to several reformers and organizations like the Muslim League, a party founded on December 30th, 1906, in Dacca. Originally, the party fought for separate Muslim representation at all levels of government. The party claimed to represent the grievances and demands of the entire Muslim community within British India. 

Under its leader, Jinnah, the Muslim League issued several requirements for greater rights of Indian Muslims in a vast country of British India in which Muslims at that time accounted for some ¼ of the total population. Nevertheless, this political demand became all the more urgent with the increasing momentum of the Indian National Congress (the INC) under M. Gandhi, which made self-government or even independence under a Hindu-dominated government all but inevitable during the 1930s. In the first decades of its existence, the Muslim League pursued the dual aim of winning greater rights of self-government from the British colonial power and of winning greater rights for Muslims within such a British system. In order to achieve the first aim, the Muslim League cooperated with the INC, with which it allied itself in the Lucknow Pact of December 1916. However, the League was largely ineffective in the 1920s, when it claimed to have some 1.000 members in the whole of British India. This led to a decade in the 1930s of a major revision of the political goals of the Muslim League and the organization itself for the sake of appealing to the disparate Muslim community. 

The League, in 1930, addressed its annual conference to demand, for the first time, a separate Muslim state in the western portion of British India. This demand became gradually accepted, particularly after the Muslim League’s catastrophic showing in the 1937 elections, when it gained only 104 out of 489 Muslim seats. Therefore, its leader, Jinnah, now sought to broaden its popular base. On March 23rd, 1940, the requirement for a separate Muslim state became accepted as the official party’s policy in the coming years. It was known as the Pakistan Resolution or the Lahore Resolution, which, in fact, warned that if conditions for Muslims, especially in areas with a Muslim minority, did not improve, Muslims would lay claim to separate states as their homelands. The very idea of separate Muslim states referred to the western provinces of British India and East Bengal. The Muslim League in 1944 claimed over 2.000.000 members. The League got in the 1945−1946 elections 75% of the Muslim vote. Therefore, the Muslim League got a popular mandate for the creation of a separate Muslim state in the western regions of British India. This task was finally achieved by the creation of an independent Pakistan on August 15th, 1947. However, initially dominant in Pakistani politics, after the death of its party’s leader, Jinnah, the Muslim League lacked an integrative force and soon dissolved into various groups in the coming decade.  

All the countries of South Asia have been troubled by the special position of minorities and of regional groups. The Indian government’s attempt to foster Hindi was soon faced by demands for a new structure of states on linguistic lines, and from the 1950s onward, state boundaries have been rearranged. However, the linguistic feeling remained strong, especially in South India in Madras State, which was renamed Tamil Nadu. Before 1947, Pakistan formed part of British India, but following the British withdrawal from the Indian sub-continent in 1947, Pakistan was created as a separate state, comprising the territory to the north-east and north-west of ex-British India in which the population was predominantly Muslim. In Pakistan, linguistic and regional demands were initially resisted, and the separate provinces of West Pakistan were amalgamated as One Unit. However, regional loyalties forced a return to the old provinces, representing linguistic regions, in 1970. In East Pakistan, the strength of Bengal culture and grievances against the dominant West Pakistan elite fostered a demand for autonomy and later for independence.  

The Partition in 1947

For the reason that no agreement could be reached on a unified form of independence, a decision was required about the partition of the Indian sub-continent. The areas in the northwest with a Muslim majority were allowed to choose separation and the formation of a new state of Pakistan. The provinces of British India, which were affected, voted either through their elected representatives or by plebiscite. The rulers of the princely states within British India chose whether to join the independent state of India or where their boundaries marched with the new partition line, Pakistan. Punjab and Bengal were separately partitioned. Independence came to India and Pakistan in August 1947, to Burma in January 1948, and to Ceylon in February 1948. 

In India, it was fraught with problems from the beginning. The major part of the Indian sub-continent wished to remain united under the leadership of Nehru and the Indian National Congress. However, the explosive situation and the impossibility of securing agreement between Congress and the Muslim League led by Jinnah forced the hand of the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, and on August 14th, 1947, the sub-continent became partitioned and the new state of Pakistan (physically composed of two parts) came into existence. The princely states (500+) have been left to the individual decisions of their rulers, who could, in effect, join either India or Pakistan if their boundaries marched with the new partition lines.

For both India and Pakistan, the first question was the delimitation of frontiers between the new states. However, this question particularly affected the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, where the populations were so mixed that partition seemed the only feasible solution (like in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s). But the boundary award cut through areas which in Punjab were occupied by rich farmlands populated by Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus as neighbors.   

Nevertheless, the partition of British India soon led to the high rank of violence between Hindus and Muslims as communal riots followed, and a two-way exodus started, with Muslims moving west and Sikhs and Hindus moving east, with more than 1 million people killed. Around 7.5 million Muslim refugees fled to both parts of Pakistan from India, and around 10 million Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan for India. The partition of Bengal produced similar results. Overall, some 500.000 people lost their lives. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, President of the Muslim League, became Pakistan’s first governor-general (President). The new state was composed of the western provinces of Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab, and North-West Frontier (or known as West Pakistan). Separated by Indian territory was the eastern half of Bengal, which also belonged to the newly proclaimed independent Pakistan (or known as East Pakistan).

In addition to the resettlement of the refugees, the governments had to integrate the 500+ princely states. Most princes were persuaded to accede, promptly, to either India or Pakistan. Hyderabad resisted and became absorbed only after the action by the security forces (police). The ruler of Kashmir as well as hesitated, and an invasion of tribesmen from the Pakistani North West Frontier Province followed. The Maharaja then acceded to India, subject to a plebiscite of the Kashmir people, but Pakistan supported the tribal invaders. The situation was only stabilized by the mediation of the UN in 1949. 

The new state of Pakistan was, from the very beginning, confronted by plenty of problems. The most immediate of these was extensive migration (around 17.5 million people), as a consequence of the partition of British India into a Hindu and Muslim state. In addition, Pakistan contested its borders, as it competed with India over control of Kashmir. This confrontation has led to hostile relations with India up to today and the conduct of three Indo-Pakistani Wars. Moreover, Pakistan suffered as well from the tension between the majority of the population living in East Pakistan and the important posts in government, administration, and the military being occupied by officials from the wealthier and better-educated West Pakistan. These problems have been compounded by the total lack of any tradition or history as a single, unitary state. On one hand, East Pakistan (or East Bengal) was relatively homogeneous, but on the other hand, West Pakistan was composed of regions with widely different economies and ethnicities and with different degrees of religious observance. Some tribes of the North-West Frontier had devout observance of Islam and a history of autonomy within the former British colonial system. They have been contrasted with the more secular elite of Punjab, which had been well integrated into the British colonial administration.   

A contemporary history of Pakistan since the Partition in 1947 up to 9/11

The problem of finding a compromise that would create a viable, integrated, and constitutional entity bedeviled Pakistan during its existence. Pakistan continued to be formally ruled by the 1935 Government of India Act until 1956. The country’s liberal constitution became opposed by the fundamentalist Muslims, and in 1951, the Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated by an Afghan fundamentalist. In 1954, a state of emergency was declared, and a new constitution was adopted in 1956. However, the new political settlement failed to stabilize the country sufficiently to prevent the 1958 army coup, led by Ayub Khan. It was an attempt to adopt a multiparty system, but it failed, and consequently, Ayub Khan imposed martial law in 1958. He, in fact, abolished the recently established democracy but without much resistance, and devised a second constitution in 1962. 

On the other hand, Ayub Khan’s decade of power produced economic growth, followed, however, by political resentment as the two parts of the Pakistani state have been physically separated by a thousand kilometers of the territory of the independent and hostile Republic of India. Allegations by the Bengalis in East Pakistan against West Pakistan’s disproportionate share of the state’s assets led to demands by the Awami League, led by Mujibur Rahman, for regional autonomy. Nonetheless, in the following civil war in 1971, the Bengali dissidents defeated the Pakistani army, with help from India. It resulted in the establishment of the new state of Bangladesh in the same year. 

In 1965, Pakistan attempted to infiltrate troops into Kashmir. In the fighting which ensued, India made some gains, but in the agreement afterward reached in Tashkent under Soviet auspices, both countries agreed to return to the status quo. His precipitation of a costly and unsuccessful war with India over Kashmir in 1965, and increasing economic difficulties in Pakistan, finally led to his resignation in 1969. Relations between Pakistan and India continued to be tense, however, and rapidly worsened in 1971 when Pakistani military President, Yahya Khan, cruelly repressed the demands for autonomy in East Pakistan (East Bengal, later Bangladesh), which led to 10 million refugees crossing over into India. 

In 1970, the first-ever general democratic election has been organized, which brought to power in Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan People’s Party. However, these elections were won by the Awami League in East Pakistan. Therefore, the West Pakistani political establishment, led by Yahya Khan, refused to hand over power and sent military troops to secure control in East Pakistan. This action caused a short but extremely violent civil war, and led, after Indian military intervention in December 1971, which supported the Bangladesh guerrilla with powerful military forces, which defeated the Pakistani army within two weeks, to the independence of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. Zulfikar Bhutto, as the new President since 1971, created a populist and socialist regime. His program of nationalization, public works, and independence from US financial help failed to overcome the negative effects of the oil price shock of 1973, leading Pakistan into an economic crisis. He introduced constitutional, social, and economic reforms, but in 1977 was deposed in an army coup led by Zia-ul-Haq and later executed.   

Zia-ul-Haq improved Pakistani relations with the USA after the Soviet invasion of neighboring Afghanistan in 1979, when Pakistan came to host up to three million Afghan refugees, followed by bases for Afghan guerrillas. US military and civilian assistance led to high economic growth in the 1980s. However, Zia-ul-Haq died in a 1988 plane crash. His successor, Ishaq Khan, supervised the transition back to democracy, with the 1988 elections won by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s daughter, Benazir Bhutto. She failed to establish control over the country and was dismissed by Khan in 1990 on charges of corruption. However, she became re-elected in 1993, but once again struggled to maintain control in a country plagued by crime, the international drugs trade, and the growing assertiveness of some of the Pakistani provinces (Baluchistan and Sind) and tribes (North West Frontier Province). 

Benazir Bhutto became dismissed by President Leghari once again on formal charges of corruption and mismanagement in 1996 and was finally succeeded by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (leader of the Islamic Democratic Alliance) in 1997, who proceeded to strengthen his position by changing the constitution, which limited the power of the Prime Minister (the PM). Nevertheless, he as well as confronted the judiciary, which he sought to conciliate towards his policies. Ultimately, in 1999, he sought to introduce Islamic law in Pakistan, but this attempt led to widespread demonstrations, while at the same time, the deteriorating economic situation had already eroded Sharif’s popular support, and for the reason of his pro-Western position during the First Gulf War/Desert Storm, 1990‒1991. His order to the army to withdraw forces from Kashmir and his dismissal of Musharraf led to a successful army coup, headed by Musharraf himself, who suspended the constitution, moved to put Pakistani political and judicial institutions under military control, and tried to stabilize the economy to placate international creditors. After establishing control, Musharraf’s regime became more liberal. However, it happened only after 9/11 (in 2001) that his regime became welcomed in the Western international arena. His decisive support of the US War on Terrorism brought great foreign policy benefits and enabled him to gain very much-needed Western international loans. Nevertheless, his pro-US stance was criticized by many Islamic fundamentalists and radicals in Pakistan, so that needed to temper by a moderate stance towards radical Islamist groups in Kashmir. In 1998, Pakistan carried out a series of underground nuclear tests in response to a similar program by the focal regional enemy – India. 

The political situation in Pakistan remained turbulent, including intra-ethnic violence in Karachi, followed by national economic problems. Pakistani industrial expansion emphasized the private sector and consumer goods. Nonetheless, unemployment rose more rapidly than new production, and up to 70% of the population is still dependent on agriculture. Both governments of India and Pakistan have been putting greater emphasis on better yields from the soil. Though the rate of growth remains slow, both India and Pakistan have succeeded in attaining self-sufficiency in food. Yet some 40% of the rural population remains undernourished because their income is very low.  

Finally, from 1947 up to 1971, there were three Pakistani-Indian Wars: the First (1947‒1948); the Second (September 1st‒23rd, 1965); and the Third (December 3rd‒16th, 1971). These Pakistani-Indian wars were the result of unresolved issues, but especially border-territorial ones, between Pakistan and India that appeared after the British division of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., of British India, in August 1947 between these two states. As a consequence of the Third War, Pakistan lost its eastern territories, on which the new state of Bangladesh was formed. After the war, the general balance of power on the Indian subcontinent changed in India’s favour. India, also improved its strategic and geopolitical position. Nevertheless, the region of Kashmir has been left to be he apple of discord between Pakistan and India to our da

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic is an ex-university professor and a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade, Serbia.

Venezuela accuses US of flying combat jets near its waters

Venezuelan Defense Minister Padrino Lopez warned Washington against military attacks against his country. "Don't make that mistake," he said. / bne IntelliNews

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bnl editorial staff October 3, 2025

Venezuelan authorities have condemned what they describe as an unauthorised US military operation near the country's Caribbean waters, with officials in Caracas calling the incident a serious breach of international aviation law.

Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino said on October 2 that radar systems had tracked five American F-35 combat aircraft at high altitude approximately 75 kilometres off earlier the same day.

"They are combat aircraft. Combat aircraft that US imperialism has dared to approach the Venezuelan coast," Padrino said in remarks broadcast on state television.

The incident comes just days after Venezuela activated extraordinary constitutional measures granting President Nicolás Maduro sweeping security powers amid escalating tensions with Washington over an American military build-up in the Caribbean.

Caracas invoked a "State of External Commotion" on September 29, empowering Maduro to mobilise armed forces nationwide and assert control over critical infrastructure, including the vital oil industry. The emergency decree, valid for 90 days with a possible extension, followed reports that the Pentagon may be considering military strikes inside Venezuela targeting alleged drug-trafficking operations.

Foreign Minister Yván Gil said on social media that the jet incursion "constitutes a provocation that threatens national sovereignty" and violates international law and the Convention on International Civil Aviation. He added that the operation "put at risk" aviation safety in the Caribbean Sea.

Venezuelan officials said the jets were flying at 35,000 feet at speeds of 400 knots when they were picked up by monitoring equipment covering the Maiquetía flight information region, which extends northward over the Caribbean into international airspace.

According to Padrino, pilots aboard a commercial aircraft also informed air traffic control that they had visually identified the American warplanes during the incident.

The confrontation marks the latest flashpoint between the two governments following Washington's decision to increase its naval footprint in Caribbean waters. Whilst American officials justify the deployment as part of anti-narcotics efforts, Venezuelan authorities contend it represents an attempt to unseat the Chavista regime.

In recent operations, US forces have attacked at least four vessels, resulting in the deaths of more than a dozen individuals identified as suspected drug traffickers, though Washington has not released evidence to substantiate the characterisations.

The Trump administration has repeatedly accused Maduro of leading the alleged "Cartel de los Soles" criminal group and collaborating with Mexican cartels to supply cocaine to the United States. In August, Washington doubled its bounty for information leading to his arrest to $50mn.

Padrino described the F-35 deployment as unprecedented, noting the aircraft are based in Puerto Rico.

According to the Pentagon, at least five F-35s were sent to Puerto Rico in mid-September. White House sources cited by CNN previously indicated plans to station 10 of the advanced fighters on the island, where US Marine units have been practising amphibious assault techniques.

The Venezuelan defence minister issued a stark warning to American officials. "Don't make that mistake," he said, adding, "We are watching you. And I want you to know that this does not intimidate us."

Venezuelan military forces have already begun conducting training exercises with civilian militia members in preparation for what officials describe as a possible American invasion. 

Caracas announced plans to lodge formal protests with multiple international bodies, including the UN Security Council, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

In its official statement, Venezuela demanded that US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth halt what it termed dangerous actions that threaten regional peace in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Venezuelan forces will maintain heightened readiness to protect the nation's airspace and territorial waters, the defence ministry said.

Despite the military brinkmanship, Maduro has privately sought reconciliation with the Trump administration. In a letter dated September 6 to Special Envoy Richard Grenell, the Venezuelan leader called for a meeting with the US diplomat and denied involvement in drug trafficking, calling the allegations "fake news" and proposing "direct and frank conversations."

Grenell, who has met with Maduro several times this year to negotiate prisoner exchanges and migrant repatriations, has publicly advocated for de-escalation. However, influential administration hawks spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio reject dialogue and are said to be pushing for regime change, potentially through military means.

Water scarcity forces a rethink of Tehran's dominance

Water scarcity forces a rethink of Tehran's dominance. / bne IntelliNews

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bnm Tehran bureau October 3, 2025

When Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian broached the idea of relocating Iran's capital southward to the Persian Gulf coast in 2024, he was ridiculed. This year, on October 1, during a visit to Hormozgan province, Iran's president returned to the theme with renewed urgency. The proposal, he insisted, is no longer a matter of choice but of survival. Tehran is running out of water­ — fast.

A plan to move the economic and political capital of more than 9mn people in the main metropolitan area has been on the card for decades, but thanks in part to poor planning, overuse of resources and climate change, the plan to shift the bulk of the population away from the foot of the Alborz mountain range is gaining momentum backed by the presidency.

Discussing the matter with the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office (which is also in Tehran), he apparently stressed the urgency of the move in the next few years before the Iranian capital hits what South Africa already discovered, “day zero”, the day when the last drop of water comes out of the tap.

Last year, the capital received just 140mm of rainfall, barely half the 260mm threshold considered sustainable. Groundwater depletion has caused land subsidence of up to 30cm annually in some districts. Importing water from the south would cost €4 per cubic metre — about IRR5mn, or roughly $10 at current exchange rates.

"If we cannot establish this balance," Pezeshkian warned, "our development is doomed to failure."

His diagnosis goes beyond hydrology. Tehran, Karaj and Qazvin suffer from what the president calls "development without regard to the balance between resources and consumption" — decades of unplanned growth that have created a megacity of 16mn-18mn people in an increasingly arid region. Before the 1979 revolution, planners reportedly recommended shifting 60% of the population towards the Persian Gulf. Instead, development concentrated around Tehran. The result is a cautionary tale in urban planning gone awry.

Pezeshkian's solution involves not merely relocating government offices but fundamentally reorienting Iran's economic geography. He has sought permission from Khamenei to engage foreign consultants in designing comprehensive development plans for the south — hundred-year blueprints, he suggests, or even two-hundred-year ones. No concrete action has yet materialised.

The economic logic is compelling and needed. Iran produces 8mn barrels of oil and gas daily. A 10% reduction in consumption would save 800,000 barrels per day (bpd), worth $16bn-18bn annually. "We haggle over $1bn today," the president remarked to Hormozgan's business community, highlighting the magnitude of potential savings through efficiency alone.

Yet fiscal indiscipline undermines such rational planning. President Pezeshkian acknowledged that the government and parliament bear joint responsibility for inflation. "One of the main causes of inflation is precisely this development without financial backing," he explained. "We define development when we have no money, then we print money to cover costs—and that means inflation." The result: diminished purchasing power and deeper poverty.

During the Hormozgan visit, the government approved 287bn tomans ($5.7m) in provincial credits, with 44 projects signed across energy, education, health and water sectors. Foreign investment of €178m and domestic investment exceeding 80bn tomans were also finalised. Many expatriate Hormozganis, the president noted, stand ready to invest in their home province — if only the government provides the right conditions.

In September last year, the president said: "We have no choice but to move the country's political and economic centre closer to the southern waters." He said that continuing the current trend of development in Tehran is unsustainable, particularly given the water scarcity.

Whether this marks a genuine turning point or mere rhetoric remains uncertain. Iran has announced grand development schemes before, only to see them fueled by sanctions, mismanagement and competing priorities.

UPDATED: Security forces repel attempt to storm Georgian presidential palace

Protesters gathered outside Georgia's presidential palace ahead of a mass rally on October 4. / bne IntelliNews

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bne IntelliNews October 4, 2025

Protesters in Georgia attempted to storm the presidential palace in Tbilisi on the evening of October 4, video reports from the site showed. The dramatic scenes came as tens of thousands of people gathered for a huge demonstration on the day of the country’s local elections. 

Opposition activists had hoped the huge demonstration on local election day would revitalise the protest movement that has endured for almost a year, and had called in advance for a “peaceful overthrow” of the government. 

However, while the numbers — an estimated 100,000 — were high, the opposition did not mobilise to achieve this goal, and the crowds were dispersed by 9pm. 

This keeps Georgia in its months-long stalemate between the protesters and government, in which the government continues to have the upper hand and consolidate its grip on power. 

Election boycott 

The protest took place on the day of Georgia’s local elections, which many opposition parties are boycotting in protest at what they call the authoritarian rule of the Georgian Dream party and its founder, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili. 

Figures from the Central Election Commission (CEC) showed that as of 5pm local time, just three hours before polls were due to close, the turnout was just over 33%. 

Instead of going to vote, thousands of people began gathering along Rustaveli Avenue and Liberty Square in central Tbilisi. Ahead of the demonstration, organisers vowed to overthrow the government and promised to announce a “technical government” by the evening.

An estimate from bne IntelliNews’ reporter on the ground suggested that as many as 100,000 people converged on central Tbilisi, filling the area along Rustaveli Avenue from Liberty Square to the parliament building. 

As the 4pm start time for the rally approached, protesters draped in Georgian and EU flags gathered quietly outside parliament, chatting and smoking beneath walls plastered with anti-government posters and graffiti. Caricatures of Ivanishvili and Russian President Vladimir Putin, both marked with red crosses, symbolised anger at what many see as Georgia’s drift back toward Moscow’s orbit.

Presidential palace attacked 

Reports from several sources said protesters clashed with security forces at the gates of the presidential palace, and were forced back. Reports of arrests have not yet been confirmed. 

Georgian news outlets published footage showing demonstrators attempting to force their way through the main gate. Security forces moved in shortly after, and dispersed the crowd using tear gas. 

Several thousand protesters tried to make their way to the presidential palace, but were blocked by a phalanx of riot police. 

Tensions rose when police put up fences across the road leading to the presidential palace. At one point flames shot into the air when demonstrators set fire to items. A small number of fireworks were also set off. 

Protesters shouted and banged on police shields, holding their ground until massive reinforcements of riot police moved in. 

Georgia’s fifth president, Salome Zurabishvili, commented on Twitter that she suspected the attack was a false flag operation intended to discredit the protest. 

“I’m on Rustaveli Avenue on the 310th day of peaceful protest for Georgia’s European future. The regime’s staged “takeover” of the Presidential Palace is a provocation. We won’t fall for it — we stand for free and fair elections and a European Georgia,” she wrote on X. 

Crowds dispersed 

At around 9pm local time, police used tear gas on the crowd near the flower market on Liberty Square, quickly dispersing protesters. 

bne IntelliNews observed that most of the crowd were young and middle aged people, many of them female, rather than hardcore fighters. 

The line of hardcore younger people at the front of the crowd numbered just a few dozen, too few to fight the police, who were ranged in eight or nine ranks in front of protesters. 

The local elections — boycotted by most of the opposition forces — has become a flashpoint in a crisis that has dragged on for nearly a year. 

Mass demonstrations erupted in late 2024 after disputed parliamentary elections. They became a daily event after the government’s decision to suspend talks on joining the European Union.

Since then, protests have continued across the country, though turnout has waned in the face of a crackdown by security, with arrests of opposition leaders and other protesters and heavy fines. 

The government warned ahead of the protest of the “harshest response” to any attempt at unrest, with several opposition leaders detained in recent days.

Zurabishvili said earlier she would boycott the vote and join Saturday’s rally instead. She is seen by many within Georgia as the country’s legitimate president. They refuse to accept the Georgian Dream-dominated parliament's appointment of its own candidate, former footballer Mikheil Kavelashvili, to the presidency. 

“I will not go to the polls tomorrow — I will be with my people at the peaceful rally, like I have been at other important protests, and will remain there as long as necessary,” she said at a briefing. 

She rejected Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s claims that the rally might involve attempts to overthrow the government, calling them “lies and intimidation”. Zurabishvili said the upcoming vote “is not free or fair” and described it as “a farce and a mockery of citizens who have protested peacefully for over 300 days”. 

While opposition leaders and activists push for fresh elections and a return to the EU path, ordinary Georgians express exhaustion and frustration.

Gregory, a taxi driver in Tbilisi, said he had lost faith in the country’s leadership. “You can go to university and get a degree for when you come out [but] one of the few jobs you can get with the salary is working for the police and they pay only between $300 and $600 a month,” he said. 

“How can you live on that? There’s no prospect for anything better. All the money is controlled by those with the money and for the rest of us, we just get on with our lives.”

He, like many other ordinary Georgians, seems resigned to the fact that Georgia’s democracy is no longer functioning.

Western diplomats have warned that a violent crackdown on protesters could jeopardise Georgia’s relations with the European Union, which has already frozen accession talks and threatened sanctions over what it describes as democratic backsliding. There has been a wave of arrests in the run-up to the local election. 

The government, meanwhile, insists it remains committed to stability and warns that attempts to seize power through street action will be met with forc

China mounts major rescue in Everest blizzard

/ Julius Zetzsche - Unsplash

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By bno Chennai Office October 6, 2025

China’s Tibet region authorities have launched large scale rescue efforts after a sudden blizzard on Mount Everest’s eastern slope stranded nearly 1,000 people at high-altitude camps on October 5, 2025. The snowstorm struck at over 4,900 metres, leaving several climbers with hypothermia and collapsing tents under drifts reported to exceed 10 metres. According to Tibet’s Mount Everest Scenic Area staff as cited by HK01, hundreds of villagers and workers have been clearing snow and using bulldozers to reopen blocked passages.

Authorities said some groups were rescued between the evening of October 4 and the early hours of October 5, though many remained trapped. Accounts shared online described worsening conditions from October 3, when snow began and intensified overnight. A climber identified as Mr Sun said he left his 4,950-metre camp on October 4 before the storm sealed the route. He later learnt that Tibet’s Blue Sky Rescue Team had arrived to coordinate emergency operations.

Local media as cited by HK01 reported that the team received a distress call at 5:00 a.m. on October 5, estimating around 1,000 individuals still stranded in several camps. Some were said to be in critical condition due to prolonged exposure. China’s Shigatse authorities confirmed that Tibet’s Dingri County Party Committee and County Government had dispatched teams for support, ensuring supplies were delivered and tourists assisted.

Officials stated that first responders were already providing reception services. The rare October blizzard has highlighted the risks faced by climbers and tourists on Mount Everest, as weather patterns in the Himalayas grow increasingly unpredictable.

SEE  Almost 1,000 trapped on Tibetan side of Mount Everest by blizzard

Jefferson’s War On The Barbary Pirates Is An Unjustified Password For Military Intervention – Analysis

LIBERTARIAN ANTI-IMPERIALISM

An 1897 painting of the burning of the USS Philadelphia. Credit: Wikipedia Commons

October 6, 2025
MISES
By Joshua Mawhorter


A few early episodes of US history are commonly employed as alleged historical precedents and justifications for modern US foreign interventionism in foreign policy. One such episode is Jefferson’s dealings with the Barbary pirates during his administration without a congressional declaration of war.

This is important because this episode, among others, is used as something of a historic “rhetorical password”—an attempt to superficially raise a point in one’s favor, masquerading as evidence—in order to avoid further argumentation. Readers are surely familiar with several rhetorical passwords and attempts to use them. For example, often when defending freedom of speech, one will often hear, “But you can’t yell ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater.” Such passwords often are disanalogous to the topic debated and usually ignorant of key historical context. Whether used consciously or not, rhetorical passwords act as counterpoints without true argumentation and are usually an attempt to move beyond a point made.

Historical examples can be and are used to draw lessons for the present, in fact, knowledge of history is crucial regarding domestic and foreign policy. However, superficial uses of historical events—often with little knowledge of the history—are used as rhetorical passwords and often obscure rather than clarify. In attempts to justify modern foreign policy interventions, it is common to hear, more or less elaborately, “Well, George Washington did it.” This is also the case with Jefferson and the brief war with the Barbary pirates. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote in the New York Times in 1951, “[American presidents] repeatedly committed American armed forces abroad without prior Congressional consultation or approval.”

We should note several things before proceeding to the history itself. For one, even if Jefferson did go to war with the Barbary pirates without congressional approval, and even if this situation is analogous to the current situation one wants to justify, it does not follow that just because Jefferson did something that it was justified. That would be like saying you know someone who played Russian roulette and lived, therefore, there’s no danger in playing Russian roulette now. Further, there are often significant overlooked disanologies—breaks in continuity—between a current situation and a historical event. For a historical event to be valid as a precedent, there has to be significant situational and contextual overlap. A single point of contact—that an American president deployed military action without a congressional declaration of war—is insufficient to demonstrate a valid analogy, especially when key differences are prevalent.

Using the Barbary Pirates

This episode of American history is often utilized to justify three, often-related, points in modern American foreign policy: 1) the legitimate ability of the president to take military action without a congressional declaration of war; 2) the need to violently confront radical Islam abroad to avoid being attacked at home; and, 3) the dangers of attempting peace through “appeasement.”

One article says, “While Muslim terrorists kidnapped and killed innocent people around the world as they do today, Thomas Jefferson knew exactly how to end radical Islam’s bloodshed – with a classic American take-no-prisoners smackdown.” The article is titled, “Tough guy Thomas Jefferson crushed Muslim terrorists.” Popular historian, David Barton (whose degree is actually in religious education, not history), said of this episode,

The willingness to use force and inflict casualties is the kind of attitude it will take to answer this challenge because historically, that’s the kind of attitude that will make the Muslims say, “The price for us is too high to pay. We’ll back off and leave you guys alone.” Unfortunately, even if we do that, Muslims may not necessarily leave the others [sic] guys alone.

Apparently, the lessons to be learned by implication from Jefferson’s brief war with the Barbary pirates are that it is often necessary for presidents to take unilateral military actions without the approval of Congress despite what the Constitution stipulates, that radical Islam must be combatted abroad to avoid fighting them here, and that military interventionism is always a superior alternative to “appeasement.” However, these lessons cannot be legitimately drawn from the war with the Barbary pirates. Instead, we see that the cost-benefit analysis does not make it obvious that war was the only obvious option, there are significant disanalogies between this event and modern War on Terror, and the fact that—while the war was limitedly successful—tribute was still paid to other states following this episode.

Cost-Benefit Analysis


Determined as we are to avoid, if possible, wasting the energies of our people in war and destruction, we shall avoid implicating ourselves with the powers of Europe, even in support of principles which we mean to pursue. They have so many other interests different from ours, that we must avoid being entangled in them. We believe we can enforce these principles as to ourselves by peaceable means, now that we are likely to have our public councils detached from foreign views. (Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, as quoted in The Life and Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 215)

Unlike most modern wars, addressing the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean involved discussions of cost-benefit analysis. In other words, officials actually attempted to weigh whether the costs of war would be greater or less than the cost of continuing to pay tribute and the costs of the capture and ransom of American soldiers. Prior to the Jefferson administration, previous administrations had dealt with similar problems from the pirates but elected to pay tribute rather than go to war, not because they wimped out, but because they recognized that the costs of war often outweigh the costs of tribute and the possible benefits from a war.

After 1787, though the Confederation Congress had concluded a favorable treaty with Morocco, the other Barbary States demanded higher tribute-taxes from American ships. Patrick Newman writes,


Minister to France Jefferson, usually cognizant of the cost of war, urged armed confrontation. Far more cogent was Minister to Great Britain John Adams, who wisely noted that tribute was less expensive than war. Secretary for Foreign Affairs John Jay, reactionary to the core, hoped to exploit the opportunity and develop a strong navy.

During the Jefferson presidential administration, after having decreased government spending by 27 percent from 1800 to 1802, Newman explains the following events and how even Jefferson rejected the cost-benefit analysis of Gallatin and Randolph that war would cost more than tribute,


When Tripoli of the Barbary States demanded more tribute, the new president refused and the US entered another naval war. Jefferson failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, setting an atrocious precedent for executive overreach. In vain, Gallatin and Randolph protested to Jefferson that Congress should pay Tripoli because the cost of war would be greater than tribute and interfere with their retrenchment goals. But the adamant Jefferson pushed military spending back up. After collapsing 73 percent from 1800 to 1802, naval expenditures had increased 75 percent by 1805. Gallatin believed part of the splurge was due to Secretary Smith’s shipping background and he later accused the Smiths of embezzling war appropriations to their mercantile firm Smith & Buchanan. In addition, the Tripoli War forced Gallatin to request a slight increase in tariffs. Proponents argued for the tariff increases on the grounds that they would only be temporary, but Congress ended up making them permanent. (emphasisadded)

This war did benefit pro-navy Federalists, especially northern merchants. In 1803, John Randolph opined that there were many “who pant for military command and the emoluments of office” which would be brought about by the war. While that may sound cynical, it would be naive to overlook, especially in discussing cost-benefit analysis, the many beneficiaries of a war. In wars, there are always people who benefit from the war spending—transferred from the taxpayer, directly or indirectly, to individuals who provide goods and services deemed necessary for the war. It is not uncommon that these beneficiaries have historically agitated for war. In fact, earlier in 1785, John Jay wrote upon hearing of Algiers declaring war against American shipping,

This war does not strike me as a great evil. The more we are ill-treated abroad, the more we shall unite and consolidate at home. Besides, as it may become a nursery for seamen, and lay the foundation for a respectable navy, it may eventually prove more beneficial than otherwise.

Disanalogy between the Barbary War and Present Circumstances

It ought to go without saying, but it is necessary to point out the fact that Jefferson’s limited military response against the aggressions of the Barbary pirates—while it may have some superficial similarities—is so significantly dissimilar to the modern War on Terror or post-WWII wars without congressional declaration that it becomes irrelevant as an example. The differences in scope, constitutional process, scale of forces, and geopolitical context are so great that the example becomes almost meaningless. To cite Jefferson’s brief naval actions as justification for contemporary wars is to ignore the massive disanalogies that make the comparison historically misleading.

Jefferson may arguably have set a bad precedent going forward, however, he did approach Congress and limited himself to congressional approval, even if there was no declaration of war. That Jefferson’s request for a declaration of war was rejected by Congress does not mean Jefferson simply ignored Congress. Political scientist and constitutional law expert, Louis Fisher, wrotein response to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s attempt (above) to use Jefferson’s actions to justify Truman’s actions in the Korean War,

As valid precedent for Truman’s actions in the Korean War, Schlesinger pointed to Jefferson’s use of ships to repel the Barbary pirates. In fact, Jefferson took limited defensive actions in the Mediterranean and came to Congress to seek authority for anything that went “beyond the line of defense.” And Congress enacted ten statutes to authorize military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison in the Barbary wars. There is no connection between the actions of Jefferson and Truman. Truman seized the full warmaking authority––defensive and offensive––and never came to Congress for authority. Jefferson respected congressional prerogatives and constitutional limits. Truman did neither. None of the examples cited by Schlesinger were of a magnitude to justify or legalize what Truman did in Korea.

In fact, Jefferson said in his First Annual Message (December 8, 1801),

I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.

Congress soon after passed “An Act for the protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, against the Tripolitan Cruisers” (February 6, 1802) that allowed Jefferson “to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.” The president would also be able to “instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects,…” Section 3 further enabled “owners of private armed vessels…like authority for subduing, seizing, taking, and bringing into port, any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects,…”

Jefferson’s brief naval response to the Barbary pirates bears only superficial resemblance to modern wars, especially the War on Terror, and the differences are decisive. His campaign was narrowly circumscribed, involving only a handful of frigates and marines operating in the Mediterranean, not multi-theater deployments with thousands of troops and permanent occupation through military bases for decades. Jefferson acknowledged constitutional limits, insisting that only Congress could authorize offensive action, and Congress, in fact, passed multiple statutes explicitly empowering limited naval hostilities—unlike post-WWII presidents who have waged prolonged wars without congressional declarations. The Barbary conflict lasted only a few years (1801-1805) and cost a few million dollars, whereas the War on Terror has extended for decades and cost trillions and thousands of lives. Its purpose was limited—to defend commerce and end tribute demands—not regime change, counterinsurgency, or global ideological struggle. Even its conclusion was modest: Tripoli agreed to peace in 1805, but the United States continued paying tribute to other Barbary states until 1816. To equate Jefferson’s constrained naval defense with modern open-ended wars is to erase the vast disanalogies in scope, cost, objectives, and constitutional process. In fact, if Jefferson’s war could be termed a success, it may be said that modern users of Jefferson’s actions attempt to borrow capital from Jefferson’s success to justify their failures.

If the US wants to effectively reduce radical Islamic terror, it ought to consider the foreign policy history of the last five decades, explore the significant connection between foreign occupation and suicide terrorism, and stop funding radical Islamic jihadists abroad when they are perceived to be fighting in US interests.

About the author: Joshua Mawhorter is assistant editor of Mises.org. He was a summer fellow at the Mises Institute (2023) and a government/economics and US history teacher since 2016. Josh has a bachelor’s degree in political science from California State University, Bakersfield, a master’s in political science from Southern New Hampshire University, and a master’s in Austrian economics from the Mises Graduate School (2023). He has self-published a few books, including The First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation, Tyrannosaurus Debt: The Student Loan Crisis and How to Survive, and “An Austrian Critique of Modern Monetary Theory”, his thesis. He also enjoys teaching in the areas of theology, the Old Testament, church history, apologetics, and philosophy.
Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute


MISES
The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, the Mises Institute seeks a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. The Mises Institute encourages critical historical research, and stands against political correctness.