“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” — Arnold Toynbee
This timeless observation aptly frames the recent controversy surrounding a viral opinion piece titled “It Is Over.” The article’s sudden circulation—following its removal from The Express Tribune—sparked widespread speculation, emotional reactions, and misplaced political interpretations. However, a sober and strategic reading reveals that the matter is neither extraordinary nor politically conspiratorial. Rather, it represents a familiar case of digital virality, editorial discretion, and analytical oversimplification.
At its core, the article highlights youth frustration, economic strain, and declining trust in institutions—concerns that are neither new nor disputed. Inflation, unemployment, governance gaps, and challenges to meritocracy have long featured in Pakistan’s public discourse. What made this piece distinctive was not the novelty of its arguments, but its absolute tone, framing youth disengagement as irreversible and institutional outreach as futile. Such framing, while emotionally resonant, lacks analytical balance and risks distorting a far more complex reality.
The removal of the article from The Express Tribune should not be misconstrued as evidence of hidden truths, political pressure, or extraordinary revelations. Mainstream newspapers routinely revise or remove opinion pieces based on editorial policy, tone assessment, legal prudence, or reputational considerations. The article contained no exclusive data, classified insight, or unique awareness value. Similar—and often more rigorous—critiques of governance and society are published regularly. The decision likely reflected an editorial judgment that the piece offered limited analytical depth, excessive generalization, and a sense of finality inconsistent with responsible public discourse.
Importantly, attempts to associate the article’s removal with Imran Khan or PTI are misplaced. The piece neither references political parties nor articulates partisan ideology. Moreover, Imran Khan’s publicly stated position has consistently emphasized institutional reform rather than institutional dismantling. Conflating social critique with political intent reflects assumption, not evidence-based analysis.
The article’s virality owes more to trend-following behavior than critical engagement. A significant number of those amplifying it neither read the article carefully nor examined its implications. The narrative of “deletion” proved more compelling than the substance of the text itself—an alarming reminder of how public discourse increasingly prioritizes emotion over evaluation. This phenomenon is not merely ironic; it is dangerous, as it replaces informed debate with reactive circulation.
The article places primary responsibility for "Gen Z’s" perceived lack of patriotism on older leadership and entrenched power structures. While systemic shortcomings undeniably exist, this narrative remains incomplete. Patriotism is not enforced by command; it is cultivated through character education, moral discipline, and ethical responsibility. A critical omission in the article is the internal contradiction within youth behavior itself. Practices such as cheating in examinations, favoritism, misuse of influence, digital immorality, and indulgence in unethical online content cannot be attributed to institutional dominance alone. These behaviors reflect weak tarbiyat (upbringing), erosion of moral values, excessive freedom without accountability, and detachment from spiritual grounding. University students are not compelled by “old leadership” to engage in unethical conduct; such choices reflect personal agency. Freedom without responsibility leads to moral decay, not empowerment.
The article’s critique of institutional visits to universities is particularly shallow. Engagement initiatives—whether conducted by Authntic Departments or provincial governments—are not propaganda exercises but structured efforts to bridge between Departments and Public understanding, promote civic awareness, and encourage national cohesion. Youth engagement programs, alongside initiatives under provincial leadership as governance model in Punjab, provide internships, skill development, exposure, and structured dialogue. While no initiative is flawless, dismissing them outright ignores their tangible contributions and strategic intent. Institutions can offer platforms; they cannot manufacture integrity, discipline, or patriotism. These qualities emerge from a combination of family values, educational ethics, and societal accountability.
It's NOt Over, but Unfinished
Declaring youth disengagement or institutional failure as “final” reflects emotional fatigue rather than strategic reality. Pakistan’s current youth dilemma is a transitional phase, shaped by economic strain, digital influence, moral erosion, and uneven governance—not an irreversible collapse. Institutional outreach remains essential as a mechanism for dialogue and national cohesion, yet its success depends equally on youth responsibility, ethical conduct, and moral discipline. Governance gaps cannot excuse cheating, favoritism, or ethical decay. Patriotism without character is hollow, and freedom without accountability breeds disorder. The article’s virality exposes a deeper crisis of analytical thinking, where trends replace comprehension. Pakistan’s path forward lies in balanced accountability—transparent institutions, responsible leadership, and morally grounded youth. Disengagement is not destiny; reform, resilience, and national continuity remain achievable where responsibility is embraced. |