There has been quite a buzz on X (formerly Twitter) regarding Mr Zorain Nizamani’s article “It is Over.” After this article was published on a local newspaper’s online edition and then removed, it was perceived on X as being against freedom of expression. Discussions for and against it began, but very few individuals, just a handfu,l expressed their opinion on the actual content of the article. Not a single one deemed it necessary to even consider looking at the facts and figures. Let us take a critical look at this article.
The article presents a passionate, generational critique of patriotism and governance in Pakistan. While it captures a sentiment of frustration felt by some segments of the youth, its arguments are built on sweeping generalisations, a lack of factual substantiation, and a binary “us vs them” worldview that does not reflect the complex realities of Pakistan.
The article claims that patriotism is being artificially “sold” to a sceptical Generation Z, and that true patriotism arises only from perfect governance, with the youth seeing through this supposed “facade”.
This argument oversimplifies patriotism by reducing it to a purely transactional relationship, while ignoring its cultural, historical, and emotional dimensions. Patriotism in Pakistan, as in most nations, is multifaceted. It can coexist with criticism of the state; one can love their country while demanding it do better.
Contrary to the article’s claim, numerous surveys indicate strong patriotic sentiment among Pakistani youth. For instance, the British Council’s Next Generation Pakistan report consistently finds that a vast majority of young people express a strong desire to contribute to their country’s future and see a positive role for themselves within Pakistan.
The argument that patriotism cannot be promoted if basic needs are not met presents a false dichotomy. National identity and civic education are foundational to any society’s cohesion. The state’s efforts to promote a unifying national narrative are standard practice worldwide, rather than a unique conspiracy.
The article further claims that the powers-that-be are actively trying to keep the masses illiterate.
The article articulates a real emotional frustration but fails to convert that emotion into a coherent or factual argument
This claim is not supported by available data. According to the Pakistan Economic Survey 2023–24, the net enrolment rate at the primary level has shown improvement over the years. While the quality of education remains a significant challenge, the claim of an active conspiracy to promote illiteracy is not supported by facts.
Pakistan has also seen a dramatic expansion in higher education. The Higher Education Commission reports that university enrolment increased from 135,000 in 2003 to over 1.9 million in recent years. This directly contradicts the narrative of suppressing education.
Moreover, a more educated populace is essential for modern economic development, making it illogical for any government to deliberately maintain a largely illiterate population.
The article claims there is a total generational disconnect, with Generation Z wanting faster internet, cheaper phones, and eased freelancing restrictions, while “boomers” in power allegedly want the opposite.
This portrayal is inaccurate. The government has actively promoted the Digital Pakistan vision, including the expansion of broadband penetration. According to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, broadband subscribers have increased from a few million a decade ago to over 124 million today. The state has been a driver of, rather than a barrier to, internet expansion.
Similarly, the State Bank of Pakistan has introduced facilitation measures for information technology and information technology–enabled services exporters and freelancers, allowing them to retain a portion of their earnings in foreign currency accounts. These policies are designed to encourage, not stifle, freelancing.
Taxes on mobile phones are largely a fiscal necessity in a country with a low tax-to-gross domestic product ratio. The objective is to broaden the tax base, not to suppress youth aspirations. This represents a complex economic trade-off rather than a generational conflict.
Portraying all individuals above a certain age as a monolithic bloc with identical anti-youth views is misleading. Many policymakers, technocrats, and business leaders are actively working on policies to integrate young people into the digital economy.
Finally, the article claims that if pushed, half the youth will leave the country, while the other half will resort to disruptive or potentially violent means.
This rhetoric is irresponsible and unconstructive. It veers towards incitement rather than critique. The vast majority of Pakistani youth, like youth everywhere, seek peaceful avenues for progress, education, and employment. Framing them as a latent violent threat is a disservice to their potential and to their largely peaceful political and social engagement.
The article articulates a real emotional frustration but fails to convert that emotion into a coherent or factual argument. It relies on hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and generational stereotypes instead of engaging with the nuanced and complex challenges Pakistan faces, including economic stabilisation, institutional reform, and improvements in human development indicators.
A more productive discourse would acknowledge genuine issues such as youth unemployment and infrastructure gaps, while also recognising ongoing efforts and policy initiatives aimed at addressing them. It would move beyond blaming a single generation and focus on collaborative, evidence-based solutions that unite rather than divide the nation. Pakistan’s future depends not on a conflict between generations, but on their ability to forge a shared, pragmatic path forward.