Digital economy bet is starting to pay off

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has launched Vision Pakistan 2047, a long-term plan to boost jobs, education, technology and growth for young Pakistanis. On paper, the plan looks promising. It talks about giving women a bigger share in jobs, helping startups grow, building new schools, sending students abroad for training, and handing out laptops to deserving students. These are all good ideas that any nation would welcome. But here lies the real problem. Pakistan has never struggled to write good plans. Our history is full of grand visions, five-year plans, and national frameworks that were launched with big promises and bigger ceremonies. Vision 2025, Vision 2030, and several other such documents came before this one. Where are they now? Most were quietly shelved and replaced by the next government’s own vision, often with a new name and the same old promises. This is the real dilemma facing Vision Pakistan 2047. A plan is only as good as the system that carries it forward. Pakistan’s problem has never been a shortage of ideas. It has been a shortage of follow-through. Policies get written, launched, and celebrated, but rarely do they survive a change in government or bureaucracy long enough to show results. Even more troubling is who ends up designing these plans. Often, the same officials and institutions responsible for the failure of earlier visions are handed the task of drafting the next one. If the people who could not deliver Vision 2025 are now writing Vision 2047, what guarantee do citizens have that this one will be different? Reserving 35 per cent jobs for women and 10 per cent funding for startups sounds encouraging. Expanding Danish Schools and distributing laptops are steps in the right direction. But none of this matters unless there is honest accountability, consistent funding, and political will that outlasts one government’s term. Pakistan does not need another beautifully worded vision document. It needs a system that actually delivers on what it promises. Only then will 2047 look different from 1947.

Pakistan and the United States have signed a new five-year agreement on higher education. The deal will run from 2026-27 to 2031-32. It brings back the Fulbright programme along with other important scholarships. This is good news for Pakistani students. The agreement covers Fulbright Master’s and PhD programmes. It also includes the Visiting Scholar Programme, the Foreign Language Teaching Assistant Programme, and the Hubert Humphrey Fellowship. The plan aims to send 66 Pakistani PhD scholars to the United States over five years. Many more students can benefit from the other programmes too. This move deserves praise. Pakistan needs skilled people in every field. Science, technology, medicine, and education all need trained experts. When young Pakistanis study abroad, they learn new ideas and skills. If they return home, they can use this knowledge to help the country grow. The financial details show serious commitment. The Higher Education Commission will give at least $4.54 million every year. The total cost over five years will reach Rs6.48 billion. Selection will be based on merit only. There will be no quotas based on region or group. This is a fair approach and should be welcomed by everyone. However, appreciation alone is not enough. Pakistan must think beyond sending students abroad. The real test comes when these scholars return home. Sadly, many highly qualified Pakistanis struggle to find good jobs in their own country. Some end up doing work far below their qualification level. Others simply move abroad again because Pakistan does not offer them proper opportunities. This must change. The government should create clear career paths for returning scholars. Universities need more research funding and modern laboratories. Industries should be encouraged to hire local PhD holders instead of relying only on foreign consultants. Without such steps, the country risks losing its best minds all over again. The government should also expand this kind of agreement with other countries. More scholarships mean more opportunities for Pakistani youth. But every scholarship should come with a plan for what happens after graduation. Pakistan has invested in this agreement with hope. That hope will only turn into real progress if the country welcomes its scholars back with real jobs, real research support, and real respect for their hard-earned qualifications.

The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement has reached a new level of importance. US President Donald Trump has publicly welcomed the pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye. This is not a small development. When the president of the United States acknowledges a regional defence framework, it sends a signal to the whole world. It tells other nations that this agreement carries real weight, not just symbolic value. Trump called it a step toward greater regional security. He said it shows Middle Eastern and regional states are willing to strengthen their own ability to protect themselves. This recognition matters. It places the pact on the global radar. It also gives Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye a stronger diplomatic standing as they build this new framework of cooperation. The agreement was signed in Makkah on August 7, bringing together Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Erdogan. It focuses on collective deterrence, defence planning, intelligence sharing and strategic coordination. Erdogan himself has called it a message for global peace, especially given rising US-Iran tensions. Yet a serious question remains unanswered. Where is the response from the Gulf Cooperation Council? Where is the voice of the Arab League? Both organisations represent the wider Arab and Gulf world. Both have a direct stake in regional security matters. Their silence on such a major defence pact is puzzling. This agreement was signed in Saudi Arabia, a leading GCC member. It naturally affects the interests of every Gulf state. Yet there has been no clear statement, no formal reaction from these key regional bodies. This silence raises real concerns. Does it suggest internal disagreement among Gulf states? Does it hint at hesitation to publicly support a pact that includes Türkiye and Pakistan? Or is this simply strategic caution before making a formal position? Whatever the reason, this silence cannot continue indefinitely. Regional stability requires clarity, not ambiguity. The GCC and Arab League must break their silence soon. Their voice matters just as much as any global power’s approval.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has told all ministries to meet their deadlines under the privatisation programme. This push for speed and coordination is the right instinct. Pakistan cannot afford more delays in selling off loss making state enterprises. The government has listed 27 public sector organisations for privatisation in three phases. Officials briefed the prime minister on progress at Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi airports. They also updated him on the sale of IESCO, FESCO and GEPCO. Expressions of Interest have already been invited for all three power companies. FESCO submissions close on August 7. GEPCO closes on August 21. IESCO closes on September 7, 2026. International investors are showing interest and roadshows are continuing. This pace is encouraging but Pakistan has been here before. The privatisation of Pakistan International Airlines dragged on for years through failed bids, legal challenges and political hesitation. That delay cost the national exchequer billions in continued losses. It also damaged investor confidence in Pakistan’s ability to complete a sale once it starts one. The government must not let IESCO, FESCO and GEPCO suffer the same fate. Speed alone is not enough. Every step of this process must remain transparent. Bidding criteria, investor qualifications and final sale terms should be made public and open to scrutiny. Citizens deserve to know that state assets are being sold at fair value, not handed over through backroom deals. The prime minister was right to direct that ZTBL continue serving farmers after privatisation. Agriculture remains central to Pakistan’s economy and food security. Any new owner must be bound by clear conditions to protect farmer access to credit. The economy needs the discipline that privatisation brings. But the PIA experience proves that half measures and delays only deepen losses. The government must finish what it starts, openly and on schedule.

The Sindh cabinet’s decision to keep Dr Nighat Shah on as a professor at Jinnah Sindh Medical University, right after her retirement, and while the same post is already advertised, is a troubling example of a culture this country must abandon. Rehiring retired officials is not a reward. It is a curse. Every time a retired person is brought back through a special order, one door closes for someone else. Younger doctors, teachers, and officers who have spent years waiting patiently in line for promotion suddenly find that the position they worked toward has been given to someone who was supposed to have already left. This is deeply unfair. It sends a clear message to hardworking juniors that seniority, patience, and merit do not matter. What matters instead is influence. This problem is not limited to government departments. Private organisations often do the same thing. A senior executive retires, and instead of allowing a deserving junior to rise, the company brings the retired person back on contract. The result is always the same. Staff morale suffers. Younger employees lose motivation, because they see no real chance of advancement. Over time, these organisations lose their best talent to competitors who do offer growth. This is one of the quiet reasons many institutions eventually decline. We do not doubt that Dr Nighat Shah has had a distinguished career. Her contributions to gynaecology and obstetrics, and to medical education, are acknowledged. But outstanding achievement does not require staying in the same chair forever. A person of her experience can serve the nation in many other ways. She can mentor young doctors informally. She can join advisory boards. She can write, train, and guide the next generation without occupying a post that others are competing for through proper process. The PMDC policy allowing retired faculty to be retained until the age of sixty five is optional, not mandatory. Institutions are not required to use it. The Sindh cabinet should withdraw this order and let the ongoing selection process proceed fairly. Retired professionals deserve respect and gratitude for their service. What they do not need, and what the country cannot afford, is another door closed on the next generation.

Students in Pakistan have every right to be angry. They followed the rules, sat their exams honestly, and now they face a system that seems slow to answer basic questions. The Cambridge paper leak controversy should have been settled months ago. Instead, students are heading to protest outside the IBCC office in Islamabad because meetings keep getting postponed and answers keep getting delayed. The new forensic report from the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency makes this more urgent, not less. Investigators found no signs that the leaked video files were edited or faked. That is a serious finding. It means the leaks were likely real, even though the report could not say who was behind them. When such evidence exists, students deserve a clear response, not silence before results and vague promises after. Cambridge’s decision to pull out of a key meeting just before results were announced sends the wrong message. It looks like an attempt to avoid difficult questions rather than face them. Postponing accountability until after grades are released only deepens mistrust among students, parents and teachers. The core issue is fairness. Even if leaked material reached only a small number of students, those students may have gained an unfair advantage. Honest students who worked hard without any early access to questions could end up disadvantaged. This is not a small technical matter. It affects university admissions and futures. Schools and education authorities also share blame. Many stayed quiet when the leaks were first reported and only spoke up once public pressure grew. That is not good enough. Cambridge, IBCC and the government must treat this seriously. Students are not asking for favours. They are asking for transparency, fairness and a guarantee that this will not happen again.