PARLIAMENT has recently been debating the future of Pakistani democracy, but those debates will be for naught unless our leaders also develop the capacity to acknowledge each other’s positions.

The past two days have seen the government and opposition benches trading blame for democracy’s present, rather sorry state.

On Wednesday, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman accused the government of misusing the Constitution and resorting to unconstitutional measures. He also said his party was “prepared to die” resisting the government if the latter continued pursuing a policy of confrontation and violence, and proposed a new Charter of Democracy as the way out.

Regretting that his efforts to mediate between the government and the PTI had failed because the government had changed course and imposed an emergency and governor’s rule in KP, the maulana said the political leadership had grown too intolerant for parliament to do its job.

He was not wrong, though the fault is hardly the government’s alone.

The maulana’s rebuke drew two kinds of response. Minister of Defence Khawaja Asif resorted to personal attacks, insinuating that the JUI-F chief was merely sore at being denied a share of power in KP.

PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, on the other hand, was more circumspect. Though he, too, laid much of the blame for parliament’s dysfunction on the opposition, he nonetheless urged it to exercise its powers and return to parliamentary committees.

“Those who want this House to remain dysfunctional and do not want the people of Pakistan to benefit from it have succeeded,” he told the opposition benches. “You have played a part in helping these people achieve their objective.” It was a surprisingly candid admission that the House’s dysfunction serves interests other than the people’s, even if the PPP chief left out his own party’s role in getting us here.

They may have yet to come to terms with it, but both ruling and opposition parties have lost credibility and political ground due to their ongoing vendetta. The maulana’s call for a new Charter of Democracy, though welcome, looks difficult to realise when the two sides cannot even agree to sit together in parliamentary committees.

The imposition of emergency and governor’s rule in KP was a gross misstep by the federal government, and it has spoiled the chances of a negotiated settlement. But the opposition, too, has gained little from confrontation.

Unless both sides start to show some flexibility on key matters, make compromises and enter negotiations without preconditions, they risk further deepening this crisis of their own making.

If enough lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are willing to admit that matters have gone too far, there may yet be hope for parliament, and for Pakistani democracy. The question is, are they ready to do so?

Published in Dawn, October 30th, 2026

LAHORE is choking again, and the government’s answer is to send more machines onto its streets. On Wednesday, its air quality index reached 296, putting children, outdoor workers, and the elderly at particular risk.

Yet Punjab plans to acquire 30 more truck-mounted fog cannons. These can suppress road dust locally, but their ability to reduce the fine particles most harmful to health remains questionable. Authorities must explain what the existing fleet has achieved in terms of measurable pollution reduction before spending more public money.

Last year, disruptions to Punjab’s air monitoring network raised suspicions that pollution levels were being hidden; officials cited technical faults. Whether equipment is recording pollution or spraying water, public confidence depends on transparent data and independent scrutiny. A temporary improvement at a pollution hotspot, or near a monitoring station, cannot prove that the city’s air is becoming safer.

Monitoring should expose pollution. Punjab must publish continuous readings and independent assessments of its interventions. It should also fund research into the relative contributions of traffic, industry, construction, and crop burning, how these change with the seasons, and which measures actually reduce exposure.

That scientific effort must extend beyond the border. Punjab officials say easterly winds have been bringing polluted air from India into Lahore. But this does not absolve Pakistan of responsibility for its own emissions. The air over the two Punjabs is shared, and both populations suffer when political hostility obstructs cooperation.

Calls for joint action are not new. Cooperation was proposed with Indian Punjab in 2017 and 2024. Yet neither initiative led to sustained cooperation. Environmental diplomacy with New Delhi should be prioritised, despite wider tensions. Both sides could begin by exchanging verified air-quality and weather data, jointly studying the movement of pollutants and developing common approaches to agricultural burning and industrial emissions. Universities and scientific institutions could help build a shared evidence base.

At home, dedicated research funding, stronger monitoring, and open evaluation of anti-smog spending are essential. Enforcement must continue, but decisions should follow evidence, not the visibility of machinery on city roads. Until the air itself improves, no amount of official activity can be called progress.

Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026

THE PPP appears quite perturbed over the fact that the creation of new provinces or administrative units continues to be discussed. Speaking at an event in Karachi on Tuesday, PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari asserted that no one outside Sindh could decide its future. “So we should now put a full stop to this conversation as well.”

The Bhutto scion said the people of Sindh and their elected representatives had “given their verdict” on this matter, ostensibly referring to a Sindh Assembly resolution in early September.

Solely on principle, his position cannot be faulted. The Constitution does lay out a clear process for decisions of this sort, and it gives the elected assembly of each affected province a final say on the matter. Of course, there are public representatives from the same province, albeit from other parties, who disagree with the PPP chairperson’s view. However, that disagreement alone cannot be used to override a defined legal process.

Unfortunately, as recent events in KP have shown, the public’s mandate and verdicts delivered through the ballot box can be brushed aside if the centre is sufficiently motivated. For KP, its decisions are now being made not by its elected representatives, but by administrators handpicked by Islamabad.

It can be argued that this is, perhaps, not a fair comparison, but Mr Bhutto-Zardari should still realise that his position may not hold as much force as he thinks it does, and it will, therefore, not be as easy to bury this agenda as he would like. There are many voices within the federal government’s ruling coalition that are actively advocating for the division of all provinces into more ‘manageable’ units.

As was seen in KP, such voices can be amplified to find causa proxima, the trigger for an intervention, if it comes to that. Therefore, a better course of action would be to address governance grievances proactively.

The primary reason for governance failure in Pakistan is not the geographical size of the existing provinces but the reluctance of provincial capitals to empower local bodies. Few can convincingly argue that the local government system, as it exists today, is capable of positive change at the grassroots level.

At the same time, simply creating more provinces will only add heavy, expensive layers of provincial bureaucracy at a time when Pakistan can ill afford them. There are also steep social costs to consider, as pushing forward without public validation could trigger ethnic strife.

Therefore, empowered local bodies remain the best answer to all those issues which seem to warrant a fracturing of the provinces in the eyes of those demanding an administrative restructuring. The decrepit LG system needs to be revitalised, with resources invested in it judiciously. Doing so can improve service delivery at the neighbourhood level in a meaningful way.

Published in Dawn, October 29th, 2026

THE fact that high officials from the Makkah defence pact partner states — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye — were in Tehran on Monday made global headlines, and with good reason. At a time when the clouds of war are once again hovering over the Gulf, the meeting sent a strong message that regional states with often competing agendas can come together and discuss their issues at the negotiating table. The event was also significant as the Makkah alliance has been seen as an alternative defence arrangement vis-à-vis Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’.

Pakistan was represented by the chief of defence forces, while significantly, Saudi Arabia sent its defence minister, a brother of the crown prince. This shows that Riyadh accorded the highest priority to the meeting. The official Iranian readout said the participants pledged to “continue the dialogue … for peace and security in the region.”

The event is also further proof of Pakistan’s constructive efforts in the diplomatic arena, as the meet-up was held after the CDF — who was in Tehran last week — suggested it.

All regional states are wary of possible fresh US/Israeli attacks on Iran, and the Tehran meeting must be seen in this framework. Moreover, Saudi Arabia has likely reached out to Iran to get the Islamic Republic to use its connections with Yemen’s Houthi Ansarallah group to stop its attacks on the kingdom. Riyadh is also concerned about Iranian retaliation in the face of a renewed Israeli and American attack.

Perhaps Yemen can be the first area for the Makkah pact allies and Iran to discuss. A fresh push for peace should be made that envisages an immediate ceasefire supplemented by an end to Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, and a lifting of the Saudi-led blockade on Houthi-held areas in Yemen. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as other regional powers, should advocate a negotiated settlement to the Yemeni civil war.

Beyond Yemen, the fact that the US and Israel are preparing for fresh aggression against Iran could spoil efforts for a regional entente. This is why all participants of the Tehran meeting must clearly say that they oppose attacks on Iran or any other regional state.

Iran and the Makkah pact states should also pledge not to let external actors use their soil to launch aggression against each other. In fact, while inviting Iran to join the Makkah alliance may not be practical at this juncture, regional states can at least agree to a common non-aggression framework. That would send a powerful message to external actors that seek to destabilise the region.

States of the region are making sincere efforts to prevent a return to war. It is time Washington and Tel Aviv read the writing on the wall and abandoned their destructive plans.

Published in Dawn, October 28th, 2026

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