Separatist insurgencies in Balochistan have existed for decades and are escalating with time. Although the conflict between the state and the Balochi people is multidimensional, one of its root causes lies in the province's education system. Pakistan's policies for Balochistan make education part of the conflict in 2 main ways : a) It ignores the needs and demands of the Balochi people. b) It is a tool used to control them. a)The province needs an equitable approach to address its unique needs. Such as the scattered population, hard-to-access terrain, and weak infrastructure. Instead, the state uses a very "top-down" approach, not considering local realities. Consequently, Balochistan has problems like a very high drop-out rate, single-teacher/overcrowded schools, untrained teachers, insufficient books, and gender disparities in schooling opportunities. There are approximately 3500 ghost schools ( schools present in government records but not in reality) (Daily Dawn News, 2009). The connection with the ongoing conflict lies in the resentment created by these problems. Because in terms of allocating state resources for education, Balochistan has been the state's lowest priority compared to other provinces. In 2008-09, the literacy rate for Punjab was 59%, Sindh 59%, KPK 50% and only 45% for Balochistan. The education gap sets off a vicious cycle of disparities between the Baloch and the rest of the Pakistani people. It translates into a huge skill gap. Hence an income and employment gap. Income inequalities lead to inequalities in nutrition, health, socio-economic status, influence, power, and even political positions, an important source of conflict. "A typical Baloch is twice as poor as his counterpart in any of the other three provinces" (Institute of Public Policy, 2011, referenced in Ahmed, 2013: 104). b)Pakistan was made for people who share the same religion-Islam. But it constitutes communities who have identities other than being Muslims. Since independence, the state has been trying to create this new national identity for the numerous ethnicities living together, using education as a tool to create obedient, loyal Muslim Pakistanis. It is a controlling system that aims to bury the rich history, culture, language, and identity of Baloch, Pashtun, Sindhi, and even Punjabi people. All for the legitimacy of the spurious surface-level Pakistani identity. 'The best way of keeping people enslaved is to keep them illiterate". The Baloch have always been vocal against letting go of their heritage. When other provinces are obedient to the state, it gladly educates them. But because it is unsure of 'Baloch loyalties, ' it systematically omits them for education. The state is afraid of providing students with a democratic education to avoid any rational thinking. New Balochi generations are kept ignorant of their heritage to stunt any will for liberty. Besides an underdeveloped education sector, other methods are also used to achieve this objective. The school curriculum and textbooks, especially the compulsory subject Pakistan studies, barely mention aspects of Balochi culture. But when mentioned, the youth are taught their Balochi ancestors to be very 'backward, uneducated and nomad-like.' Balochi is spoken in their homes, but the students are not taught the language in schools. Instead, Urdu is forced on them as the national language, excluding Balochi poets, authors, songwriters, etc. For example, the book fair at Atta Shad Degree College in Turbat, Balochistan, was raided by the State security, and all books about Blochi history and others by progressive authors ( Bertrand Russell, Jawaharlal Nehru) were confiscated. Along with threats to shut down all-girl schools and English language centers. To conclude, the alienation of the Baloch culture created by the education system in its young population makes them indifferent to their heritage. This makes it easier for the state to extract resources with minimal resistance, as everything belongs to this one big Pakistani nation. Even if it transfers the resources extracted from Balochistan to be used in all places other than the province itself, it's all justified under the single national identity. Let me know what you guys think.

University campuses have long been used for debates on global conflicts and sites for demonstrations and protests. Students usually use their freedom of expression to take sides and express their opinions on war crimes, conflicts, genocides, and other political issues at local and international levels. With little intervention from people outside the campus. However, debates on the genocide in Palestine have been subject to scrutiny and censorship, particularly after October 7. Students openly supporting Palestine have faced consequences for expressing their opinions. For example, some were assaulted with Islamophobic threats, and others lost their jobs over statements about conflict. At the University of California, Berkely, a law professor, published a Wall Street Journal against students who oppose Zionism titled "Dont hire my anti-Semitic Law students"Their personal information has been leaked online, and many Republican leaders in the US, for example, have threatened to revoke the visas of such international students. Many Jewish students, on the other hand, got death threats and have been harassed just for being Jewish. Speaking on political issues has never really affected the safety of students and their future careers to this extent. So, should universities regulate student speech and stop political debate? Should they ban students from taking sides on international issues? In my opinion, no. That is because Universities are one of the few places where political debate and disagreement can occur between educated individuals in a civilized and scholarly manner. One of the primary missions of universities is to induce discussions and debates, help students find a voice of their own, and build strong opinions. As well as learn to accept diversity in views. How to listen and respond to points of view that differ from what they think. Therefore, I think campus administrators must ensure the safety of campus spaces and the diversity of student voices so they can come together, protest, and learn from each other. They should also place boundaries for protection from external actors and internal harassment. Where the students must not be punished for siding with Hammas or Israel and other political stances. But hate speech and violence should be prohibited, especially within campus boundaries. Campus leaders would have to communicate the consequences of assault and hate language clearly and promote a more tolerant culture. They must then make significant efforts to defend their students from politicians and other institutions for using their right to free speech. What do you think? How can universities protect students' freedom of speech and ensure their safety simultaneously? Should they work for safety and freedom of speech, or must one be sacrificed?

The last couple of decades in France have been subject to intense conflict over how Muslim women dress.  The French government has passed a series of laws banning women from wearing first the hijab, then the niqab, burkini, and now the abaya in public spaces, especially schools. All in the name of laïcité -i.e., secularism, which marks the focal point of the French nationalist identity.  Several studies have been conducted and published to resolve this contentious debate. However, it is still unclear whether the ban on Islamic veils inhibits Muslim girls from having a regular schooling experience or whether this policy encourages their academic and social integration into French culture. This is partly due to the existence of media biases, where both sides of the argument seem to be backed up with conflicting statistics of secondary and high school graduation rates of Muslim women before and after the implementation of the hijab ban.  The government's defense for the significant backlash against these 'Islamophobic' policies is that Islamic veils are a sign of the "too much externalization" of religious association, which is incompatible with the neutrality required in public schools. Consistent with France's secularist approach to reinforce national unity.  Similarly, those for the ban on headscarves present several arguments. For example, before the hijab ban, a 'silent majority' of young Muslim girls had to wear the veil because their Muslim parents forced them to do so. As a result, they had to face adversity both in school through social isolation if they wore the scarf ( where the hijab is not a norm) and then at home if they didn't wear the hijab to school. Following the ban, the tension on one side was relieved, and attending school without wearing the veil was no longer considered a troublesome choice at home (it was feasible to participate in school without incurring social reprobation), resulting in a lower dropout risk. Their academic performance significantly improved once these students started attending school with reduced peer pressure. Research by Éric Maurin and Nicolás Navarrete Hernandez shows an 8% reduction in high school graduation gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim girls in France after the hijab ban.  Under the same research, they describe how many girls thought of the veil as misogynistic, seeing their brothers weren't forced to do so. Along with the finding that the ban vastly increased the chances of mixed marriages in France for a more united yet diverse population.  On the other hand, a vast proportion of women who wish to live by the rules of Islam have been protesting against the ban.  After its implementation in 2004, girls were required to go to school unveiled. Failure to do so left them with 4 options - expulsion, continuing at a relatively expensive private school, online learning, or fleeing the country. Hence the increased risk of dropout. Even in successful negotiations with the school staff, the disruptions caused by the ban for many girls resulted in delays in completing their secondary education. Vasiliki Fouka,(https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/people/vicky-fouka) professor at Stanford. Looking at other long-term consequences in her study, she found that "the veiling law widens the employment gap by more than a third, the labor force participation gap by more than half, and the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims in cohabitation with parents by more than a third." Such policies have implications for the broader Muslim population in schools who don't wear headscarves as well, bringing unwanted attention to the way they dress and adding fuel to the ethnic conflict. In response to the ban, many French and other international influencers have started the "Don't touch my hijab movement" on social media. To demand their freedom of expression, whether it is wearing the hijab or taking it off.  What do you guys think? Do hijab regulations reduce the social adversity Muslim women face as citizens of France? Or do they reinforce the French-Muslim divide and disrupt their education and other aspects of life?