The sad news is: “once again, Pakistan’s passport finds itself near the bottom of the global mobility ladder”. The promising news is: “Pakistan has inherent credentials to fix it”. This column digs into both the aspects.

In the Henley Passport Index 2025, Pakistan ranks 103rd out of 109 countries, a position that underscores a perception of persistent structural, economic, and geopolitical constraints rather than mere administrative inefficiency. This marks the fifth consecutive year that Pakistan’s passport has languished near the bottom, a reminder that a passport is not just a travel document — it is seen as a reflection of a nation’s global standing, its governance record, and the world’s perception of its stability.

Having said that, one is intrigued not to take the ranking on its face value but to search for questions which drive this ranking and its credibility, notably:

What are the criteria behind passport rankings?

How fair or fact-based are these rankings?

Why does Pakistan’s passport rank so low?

What does this ranking mean for Pakistan’s global perception?

Out of these questions shall emerge the answers to fix Pakistan’s ranking.

The Henley Passport Index, produced by the London-based Henley & Partners, evaluates 199 passports against 227 destinations worldwide. Its ranking is reportedly purely on visa-free or visa-on-arrival access that a passport grants its holders.

The index draws its data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), ensuring that rankings are grounded in real-time travel policies and global mobility arrangements. Each destination a passport can access without a prior visa earns one point. There is no weighting for GDP, trade volume, or diplomatic relations — it is a measure of freedom of movement.

While the Henley Passport Index is data-driven and verifiable, relying primarily on official IATA information, it does not capture the full context or nuance of a country’s international standing. The methodology measures the outcome — visa-free access — but not the reasons behind it. That means broader factors such as security perceptions, global media narratives, and diplomatic biases can indirectly shape these outcomes.........

© Business Recorder