THE government’s plan to distribute 500,000 Chromebooks to students over two years could help narrow Pakistan’s digital divide. The devices, which will come with MiFi internet connectivity, are meant for students handpicked under the scheme. In a country where access to computers and reliable internet still depends heavily on family income and location, that matters.

A student who cannot afford a laptop should not be locked out of online learning, digital skills or job opportunities. But the value of the scheme will depend on how it is carried out. The state should publish clear eligibility criteria, ensure that poorer students are not crowded out by those who already have devices, and explain how the refurbished Chromebooks will be procured, tested and distributed.

The total cost should also be disclosed, along with safeguards against political influence in selecting recipients and suppliers. There should also be a plan for repairs, replacement and technical support. A device that stops working after a few months, or cannot connect reliably outside major cities, will do little to close the gap it was meant to address.

More importantly, access to hardware is only one part of Pakistan’s education problem. A Chromebook cannot compensate for weak teaching, poor literacy, overcrowded classrooms or schools without dependable electricity and internet access. Nor will handing out devices automatically improve learning. Teachers need training to use digital tools well, students need access to useful content, and schools need systems that can blend technology with ordinary classroom instruction.

The government should therefore set measurable goals for the scheme: whether students use the devices regularly for learning, whether their digital skills improve, and whether this leads to better educational outcomes. Independent evaluation would help determine if the programme deserves expansion. There is also a case for giving students in remote and low-income areas greater weight, since they stand to benefit most from access they currently lack.

Pakistan has launched laptop schemes before; what matters now is whether this one produces more than a distribution ceremony. Technology can widen opportunity, but only when it is tied to good teaching, reliable connectivity and clear educational purpose.

Published in Dawn, October 27th, 2026

THE proposed merger of the Privatisation Commission and the Public-Private Partnership Authority (P3A) into a single institution is a sensible move. It will end the duality of functions and provide a more coherent framework for mobilising private capital to manage public assets and develop physical infrastructure for which the state has limited resources to spare.

Although the two bodies operate under separate laws, their mandates intersect in bringing private capital and expertise into areas dominated by the state. A unified entity could offer a common platform for evaluating these options.

Privatisation involves transferring ownership or control of state assets, while public-private partnerships (PPPs) allow governments to enlist private capital for projects they cannot finance. Both approaches require sound financial assessments and clear risk allocations.

With Pakistan facing persistent fiscal constraints, the state cannot afford to finance loss-making enterprises indefinitely. Private investment can help ease these pressures, but it is not an end in itself. Poorly structured transactions can leave the state with inadequate returns or costly contractual obligations.

The proposed legislation envisages four public funds to support privatisation and PPP transactions. These instruments could help prepare viable projects and attract investment. However, they must not become vehicles for subsidising commercially unsound ventures. Government guarantees and liabilities should be disclosed and assessed before deals are approved.

The proposed legal protections for serving and former officials acting in good faith also require careful rethinking. Officials should be protected against frivolous litigation when making decisions in the public interest. Such protection must not, however, become immunity from accountability.

Making PPP agreements accessible as public documents is also positive. Public scrutiny is particularly important when private investors enter long-term arrangements that may impose financial obligations on taxpayers and successive governments.

The new arrangement offers an opportunity to improve the management of state assets and infrastructure investment. Its success will depend on securing fair value for public property, attracting credible investors and ensuring that partnerships deliver tangible benefits.

The bill proposes a majority-independent board with private-sector representation to strengthen commercial decision-making. Its effectiveness will require transparent appointments, relevant expertise, political independence, clear performance benchmarks, strong accountability, and enforceable conflict-of-interest rules to ensure effective governance.

The state must now ensure that commercial discipline, transparency and accountability guide its implementation.

Published in Dawn, October 27th, 2026

Ten suspected criminals killed in Karachi police ‘encounters’ in two days should trouble anyone concerned about public safety and the rule of law.

Seven died in separate incidents on Thursday and another three on Friday. In each case, police reported armed resistance, exchanges of fire, and the recovery of weapons.These accounts may be accurate, but cannot be accepted without scrutiny. Officers confronting armed criminals have every right to defend themselves and others.

Karachi’s residents, long exposed to street crime and violent robberies, deserve protection. Yet the frequency of these so-called encounters raises questions about how operations are conducted and whether suspects are given an opportunity to surrender.

Whether the police actions were legitimate or unlawful can only be established through credible investigations. There must be forensic examination of weapons, independent verification of police accounts, and proper documentation of injuries and evidence.

Such scrutiny should be routine whenever police gunfire causes death, regardless of the victim’s alleged criminal history. Otherwise, the public must rely entirely on the version offered by those who pulled the trigger. The concern extends beyond Karachi.

In Punjab, where the Crime Control Department faces allegations of staged encounters, the political response has exposed a dangerous willingness to equate police killings with justice. After a suspect in the killing of a teenage worker in Multan died in an alleged encounter, PML-N lawmaker Hina Parvez Butt celebrated it as “justice served immediately”. She deleted the post but defended her remarks as public sentiment.

Anger over a child’s murder is understandable. But an elected representative ought to know that public outrage cannot substitute for a trial, and that a police killing is not a judicial verdict. Punjab Information Minister Azma Bokhari criticised the comments, though the issue is larger than one politician’s embarrassment.

Governments must make clear that police performance will be judged by crimes prevented, offenders lawfully arrested, and cases successfully prosecuted, not bodies counted. Independent inquiries into disputed encounters should publish findings and establish responsibility if unlawful force is proved. Police officers need training, equipment and supervision that make arrest a realistic option where possible. A force that can shoot but cannot build a case offers little lasting security. The police are duty-bound to protect lives. They do not have a licence to kill.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2026

THE announcement of an indicative wheat price of Rs4,500 per 40 kilograms may have come too late for Sindh farmers, but it is welcome as far as it goes. That is not far.

The figure is Rs1,000 higher than last year’s and, by the government’s account, reflects rising production and fuel costs. It is also Rs500 short of what farmers demanded. And there is no word on who will buy the grain or when.

An indicative price is a signal, not a guarantee. Since April 2025, when the government dropped the support price and suspended large-scale procurement, farmers have been promised a market-based system that would serve them better. It has not.

The crop now being sown is the third to go into the ground without a floor. Punjab’s experience this April shows what happens when a procurement price is announced without a mechanism to enforce it. The province tried to revive buying through bank-backed private aggregators. The banks doubted the scheme’s viability, and the aggregators bought only 160,000 tonnes against a target of 2.5m tonnes. Prices fell anyway.

A price no buyer is obliged or financially equipped to pay is only a number. Growers seem to have grasped this before the government did.

Consumers, meanwhile, are not being spared. Over five years the price of wheat has gone up by 150pc, and that rise goes straight to the price of flour. Punjab has used the price as its only tool instead of working on the cost of farm inputs, which the federal government’s policies have kept high.

Flour in cities is selling for Rs160-190 per kilogram, which is hard on poor households. Even the government’s stocks are expensive. Sindh began selling government wheat this month at Rs12,500 per 100kg, or Rs5,000 per 40kg. That is more than the prime minister has offered farmers.

The test of wheat reform is not whether the government can step out of the market. It is whether the system that replaces government buying shares the risk fairly among farmers, traders, millers, banks, and the state, keeps flour affordable, and protects the country’s food supply.

For now, farmers carry most of the risk while everyone else looks after their own interests. With sowing already underway, the government should say in plain terms what it will buy, through which agency, with what money, and by when. It should adapt its imports to that plan. It should look at the cost of fertiliser and other inputs, instead of relying on price alone. And it should help poor households directly, instead of keeping flour cheap for all by squeezing the grower.

A price announcement with no buyer behind it will not persuade anyone to sow, and a market that works for only one side is not worth defending.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2026

AS speculation grows regarding fresh US-Israeli aggression against Iran, major Muslim states of the wider Middle East, as well as European powers, have clearly expressed their lack of appetite for any such misadventure.

Meeting in Istanbul on Friday under the ‘R4+E3’ umbrella, the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkiye, the UK, Germany, and France discussed several global hotspots, including Iran and Ukraine. Italy also participated in the meeting. The Turkish foreign minister said that “no one supports” military intervention in Iran at this moment, while France’s top diplomat said any escalation “would only have losers”, besides increasing oil prices, which are already high.

There is good reason for the international community to be worried. Strong signals are emerging from Tel Aviv and Washington that the US and Israel are planning a new assault on Iran, reportedly after the American midterms on Nov 3 — perhaps even earlier.

US President Donald Trump has himself said that “we may do another little Epic Fury”, referring to the name America gave to the aggression launched in February. While the US leader is known for his bluster and often non-serious threats, in this regard he may actually mean what he has said.

The US has been sending more troops and military equipment to the Middle East, and American and Israeli forces have reportedly rehearsed attack plans. Tel Aviv is particularly enthused about going after Iran again.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time is equated with folly. But arrogance has blinded both the US and Israel to this reality.

Israel had first attacked Iran in October 2024, while both the US and the Zionist state initiated two more aggressive operations against the Islamic Republic, in June 2025 and February 2026. These attacks, particularly the assault launched this year, inflicted huge damage on Iran, decimating its military, political, and religious leadership. But the country regrouped, defended itself, and fought back against the aggressors. The Iranians have reaffirmed that any new attack will be met with “offensive” measures.

All of this is cause for alarm. The Gulf states that host American facilities will again be in the line of fire, which is why Muslim countries have warned against a new conflict. But will the war lobbies in Washington and Tel Aviv listen?

Many governments and most people of the Middle East are tired of war, and want to rebuild their lives and economies. If conflict and bloodshed return, the shockwaves caused by disrupted energy and trade flows will leave few economies unscathed.

Therefore, America should abandon its plans to further destabilise the region. Instead, it should rein in its ally Israel and its bloodthirsty leaders.

Published in Dawn, October 25th, 2026