If a company can survive the upheaval caused by the adoption of artificial intelligence, AI will help it thrive in the longer run, a study presented.

Its authors, who used data from the US Census Bureau and surveys covering the period between 2017 and 2021, found early adopters of AI in the manufacturing sector saw their productivity drop as they replaced human workers with robots.

Their findings go against prevailing narrative suggesting that AI makes work more productive and “augments” jobs in many cases rather than automating them away.

“In the short term, we see a lot of pain,” Kristina McElheran, one of the authors of the paper, told the conference.

She explained the drop in productivity as a side-effect of AI interfering with manufacturers’ established practices, such as keeping low inventories.

Over time, however, these firms began outperforming on all counts – sales growth, productivity and employment – provided that they managed to make it through the upheaval.

“Surviving this seems like part of the problem,” McElheran, a researcher at the University of Toronto, said.

She said this rebound did not generally happen at older companies, which also tend to be larger, and “struggle to get this done”.

McElheran and colleagues worked on a sample of 30,000 firms among which AI adoption rose from 7.5% to 9.1% over the course of the study period.

Introducing the conference earlier, ECB President Christine Lagarde had said between 23% and 29% of workers in Europe were highly exposed to AI but this need not herald a “job apocalypse” because new roles were likely to be created while old ones are destroyed.

Qamar Bashir

In recent days, a highly controversial and unprecedented development has taken place involving a top-ranking official of Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), holding a political meeting with influential members of the Pakistani diaspora in Washington, D.C. The event, arranged officially through the Pakistani Embassy’s military wing, has sparked intense debate both within the Pakistani community in the United States and across social media platforms.

What makes this meeting particularly concerning is not only its political nature but also the fact that it was led by an ISI official—a role that, by constitutional design, has no mandate in civilian governance or politics. Attendees included prominent Pakistani Americans—businesspeople, academics, community leaders—who were assured that the grievances of overseas Pakistanis, particularly regarding the political turmoil in Pakistan and the incarceration of Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister and founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), would be addressed. However, this assurance came not from elected representatives or diplomatic officials, but from a figure whose domain is intelligence and national security, not political arbitration.

Following the Washington meeting, a delegation of Pakistani Americans reportedly traveled to Pakistan, where they met senior military leadership, including a high-ranking general. Instead of constructive dialogue, they were met with harsh admonitions. They were criticized for what the military viewed as their inappropriate and damaging criticism of the armed forces abroad. They were accused of maligning the image of the state and acting against the “greater national interest.” The delegation returned empty-handed, with no progress made on their core demands—most notably, the release of Imran Khan.

This entire episode reveals an alarming shift in civil-military dynamics in Pakistan. Historically, the military has maintained significant influence over national policy, but efforts were made—at least superficially—to preserve a civilian face. In this case, the pretense of civilian oversight has been abandoned altogether. What should have been a diplomatic engagement led by elected officials or consular authorities turned into a direct political interaction spearheaded by the military intelligence apparatus.

The ISI has no legal or constitutional mandate to conduct political meetings, particularly abroad, with civilian populations. Matters concerning political grievances, democratic representation, and the justice system should lie exclusively within the purview of the elected civilian government. The ISI has no authority over judicial matters, prison administration, or legislative affairs—yet it is now evidently dictating or at least influencing all these domains.

This development raises profound questions about the legitimacy of the current civilian setup. It reinforces the perception that the government in Islamabad functions merely as a facade for the decisions made by Rawalpindi. The very spirit of democracy and constitutional governance is being undermined. It is not only a betrayal of Pakistan’s constitutional framework but also an insult to the intelligence of the Pakistani public, both at home and abroad.

Worse still is the military’s attempt to suppress overseas criticism. The diaspora, often considered Pakistan’s soft power and economic lifeline due to the billions in annual remittances, is now being warned against speaking out. Diaspora voices, especially in democratic societies like the U.S., have every right to engage in advocacy, raise concerns, and demand justice. To label such engagement as “unpatriotic” or “against national interest” is an authoritarian tactic that contradicts the values of democratic freedom.

This pattern of the military engaging directly with various sectors—students, businesspeople, religious leaders, now even the overseas community—without the involvement of elected officials, reflects a dangerous expansion of its political footprint. If this trend continues unchecked, the distinction between state and government, between military and civilian authority, will be completely obliterated.

It must be emphasized that Pakistan is a constitutional republic. The military, while an essential and respected pillar of the state, must maintain civilian face. Article 243 of the Constitution clearly outlines the role of the armed forces: to defend Pakistan against external threats and ensure its territorial integrity. Nowhere does it suggest that the military can hold political meetings, dictate civilian policy, or influence judicial matters.

In the current context, with Pakistan facing multiple external threats—from tensions with India, border instability with Afghanistan, and flare-ups with Iran—, threats of Donald Trump to Bomb Iran, if it doesn’t enter into negotiation on its nuclear ambition, act of cross border terrorism from Afghanistan and internal separatists movement demand that military remains focused on its core operational duties.

Our armed forces are a national asset. They must be shielded from political controversies so that their credibility remains intact when it is truly needed. The growing politicization of the military not only weakens civilian institutions but also erodes the public’s confidence in the armed forces—a cost Pakistan can ill afford.

It is equally important that Pakistan’s universities, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, professional bodies, and business leaders, when receiving invitations from the military, should insist on a civilian head leading such engagements. The military representatives should play a supplementary role, supporting—rather than substituting—civilian leadership. This approach would help deflect criticism that the military is directly assuming political responsibilities and would prevent the perception that it is defending government actions that fall strictly within the civilian domain and lie outside the military’s constitutional mandate.

A similar approach should be adopted in the case of meetings between foreign dignitaries and the Army Chief. Even if such meetings do occur, they should not be publicized in the media, in order to maintain at least the appearance of civilian leadership at the forefront. Engagements with the Pakistani state must be channeled through legitimate civilian representatives—not shadow figures from the security establishment. Diplomatic norms demand transparency and accountability—qualities sorely lacking in this recent episode.

Moving forward, the military leadership must reassess its approach. Rather than standing in front, it must step back and let the civilian government take the lead in political discourse, policy formulation, and international outreach. If coordination is required, it should happen behind closed doors and within the constitutional framework—not through public forums where military officials act as de facto heads of state.

A pragmatic path forward would involve restoring the primacy of civilian leadership. Let the foreign minister, ambassador, or prime minister engage with the diaspora. Let political grievances be addressed by elected representatives. Let the judiciary operate without interference. Let the media report without intimidation. In this model, the military would still retain its influence—but discreetly and constitutionally—thereby restoring a much-needed balance of power.

If this course correction is not undertaken, Pakistan risks further alienating its diaspora, losing global credibility, and deepening its internal political crisis. Civilian supremacy is not just a constitutional obligation—it is a democratic necessity.

Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC

 Macomb, Detroit, Michigan

Qamar Bashir

Our first Eid in Michigan was not just a religious celebration—it was a deeply moving and eye-opening experience. Having migrated to the United States on September 7, 2024, this marked our first Ramadan and Eid in a new land, far from the traditions and familiar environment of our homeland. After observing nearly 30 days of fasting, Eid arrived as a welcome occasion of joy, community, and spiritual fulfillment.

That morning, our entire family woke early, dressed in festive clothes, and enjoyed a traditional bowl of kheer, a gesture rooted in our cultural and religious identity. Soon after, we boarded two cars and made our way to the Islamic Center of Rochester Hills, located near Detroit, Michigan. This was our first visit, and not knowing what to expect, I assumed it would be a small mosque or a community hall—perhaps a modest place temporarily arranged for Eid prayers. But what greeted us upon arrival was beyond anything I had imagined.

The Islamic Association of Greater Detroit (IAGD), located at Auburn Road, Rochester Hills, Michigan established in 1978 has grown into a pivotal institution for the local Muslim community, offering spiritual guidance, educational programs, and social services. A significant $20 million expansion in March 2024 increased the facility’s total area to approximately 100,000 square feet, making it one of Michigan’s largest Islamic centers. Inside, spacious prayer halls, classrooms, meeting rooms, a library, recreational spaces, and community event areas support a wide range of activities, including religious gatherings, educational seminars, interfaith dialogues, and social outreach initiatives, highlighting the center’s dedication to community enrichment and intercultural understanding.

The prayer hall was enormous, large enough to accommodate thousands of worshippers. Male and female worshippers prayed in separate sections, maintaining tradition while fostering inclusivity. The hall was beautifully adorned with Quranic calligraphy, and large digital clocks displayed prayer timings. The level of organization and discipline during the Eid prayer was exemplary, a reflection of the unity and respect deeply embedded in the Muslim community here.

Following the prayer, the khutbah (sermon) by the khateeb delivered a powerful message. He shared an astonishing fact: Muslims in the United States—numbering around 4 to 5 million—collectively hold an estimated purchasing power of nearly $200 billion. That’s more than the GDP of many Muslim-majority countries. He emphasized that this economic power should not be underestimated. It can and should be used strategically—not only to secure rights, protect freedoms, and advocate against discriminatory policies but also to promote Islamic values and support the global Ummah.

He also expressed concern over the rising air of uneasiness among Muslim communities in the U.S., particularly due to certain executive actions and policies under former President Trump that had created a sense of intimidation, even among those with legal status. Despite the legal protections available, many families still live under a subtle fear. In this context, the khateeb encouraged the community to remain united, informed, and engaged—economically and politically—to safeguard their interests.

After the sermon, we witnessed families gathering in the beautifully landscaped outdoor areas and near the center’s prominent Shangri-La-style dome, taking photographs in their vibrant Eid outfits. The atmosphere was full of joy and harmony. The weather, too, had played its part—the gentle rainfall the night before had cooled the air, making the day pleasantly crisp and perfect for the outdoor gathering.

Inside the gymnasium, the community had arranged complimentary refreshments—samosas, baklava, tea, and other delicacies. This gym, which usually serves as a fitness space, had been transformed into a hospitality hall. The thoughtfulness and generosity behind this arrangement reflected the warmth and strength of the local Muslim community.

This Eid was only our second experience attending a religious gathering in the United States. Just a few days prior, we had visited a Shia community center in the Michigan area, which was equally impressive. The quality of design and construction exceeded most nearby buildings, standing as a symbol of religious pride and community cohesion.

Reflecting on these two experiences, one thing became clear: the religious freedom and infrastructure available to Muslims in the United States—especially in places like Michigan—are more robust and protected than in many Muslim-majority countries. This, though ironic, is also a powerful lesson.

In many Muslim countries, sectarian divides remain a cause of intimidation, suppression, and even violence. In some Shia-majority nations, Sunnis feel unsafe or marginalized. In Sunni-majority countries, Shias, Ismailis, and Ahmadis often face institutional discrimination or physical threats. The same intolerance extends to other minority Muslim groups and non-Muslims alike.

And yet, here in the United States—a secular country with a majority non-Muslim population—Muslims are free to practice their faith, build grand mosques, organize religious events, and express their identity without fear. The support for such freedoms is not merely legal—it is cultural and institutional. From local police providing security at Eid prayers, to municipal services accommodating prayer schedules, to ordinary citizens respecting the diversity of faiths around them, the American model of religious freedom stands out as a benchmark.

This is the strength of democracy. It protects the rights of all individuals—regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity—and allows communities to thrive without fear. This is also a reflection of the character of the American people and their institutions, who believe in inclusion, tolerance, and the protection of civil liberties.

There is a lesson in this for the global Muslim community. If a country like the United States, with no historical Islamic governance, can offer such dignity and freedom to Muslims, then surely Muslim-majority countries can and should do better. They must rise above sectarianism, uphold justice, protect minorities, and foster an environment where every believer—regardless of sect—can practice their faith without intimidation.

Islam, after all, is a religion of peace. And peace begins with tolerance. It is not enough to preach unity—we must practice it. If Muslims worldwide begin to embrace diversity within the Ummah, respect other faiths, and reflect the values of the Holy Qur’an in their everyday conduct, then the perception of Islam will change globally. It will elevate the image of Muslims, uplift the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and demonstrate the true spirit of the religion.

In the end, our first Eid in Michigan was not just a celebration of a sacred festival. It was a reminder of what it means to belong to a community—one that is free, diverse, and united in faith. It reaffirmed the importance of coexistence, the value of democracy, and the responsibility that comes with religious liberty.

Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC

 Macomb, Detroit, Michigan