Remembering Amin Mughal;Republic of revolutionarie…

It is widely believed that the more things change, the more they remain the same. For nations to stand on their own feet, the basics have to be covered; it is the lesson of history which must never be ignored. Steel has always been considered the basic building block of advancement. Pakistan started off well in producing its metals. In the decade of the sixties, the Kalabagh Iron deposit was upgraded by the German Krupp Wrenn process to be later converted into steel. Germans are known for thoroughness; they produced VW cars with the local metal. The powerful import lobby prevailed and the Pilot Plant was shut down. Precious time was lost. Finally, in the decade of the seventies the Soviet Union came to our help. The Pakistan Steel Mills project was started outside Karachi at Port Qasim. In the decade of the eighties Pakistan started producing its own steel based on imported ore and coal. The plan was to gradually replace the imported raw materials with the indigenous. At its peak the mill produced about 3 MTPY ( Million Tons per year ) against a national demand of 5 MTPY. Instead of increasing capacity, the plant was shut down in the year 2015. Coming from a family of technologists, I opted for Metallurgical Engineering. I wanted to join Pakistan Steel Mills ( PSM ) which was recruiting students for education and training in USSR. But instead, I landed in the USA where I completed my masters study from the College of Mines University of Arizona ( U of A ). Arizona was considered the world Copper Capital with several mines around. In the decade of the seventies an organization was established at the federal level called Resource Development Corporation ( RDC ) with its head office in Karachi while PUNJMIN ( Punjab Mineral Company ) covered Punjab where Kalabagh and Chiniot Iron deposits were located. It was RDC that launched the first Copper-Gold project at Saindak through its subsidiary SML ( Saindak Metals Limited ) in the year 1992. I was closely associated with this project as the bench studies were conducted in Tucson by a consulting firm by the name of MSME ( Mountain States Mineral Enterprise ). Till my master’s level, mining remained my focus. After graduating in 1981 when I returned in 1983 to start my doctoral program in Arizona, mining had been replaced by high-tech Silicon based Semiconductors. Research was focused on electronic materials. Silicon was produced from Silica Sand on which Integrated Circuits ( ICs ) were built. Metals like Aluminum, Titanium, Gold and Copper were being used. Then came the Solar Cells which Pakistan had produced in the decade of the seventies but missed opportunity due to lack of commercial linkages. While the Semiconductors and Solar batteries are in great demand, the material needs have increased manifold. Mining is back with a bang. Without basic raw materials, the technological advancements are not possible. I have gone full circle in my own career, and so have the technological advancements. From Steel to Copper, then Silicon based Semiconductors followed by mining and gasification of Coal. As a nation, we have missed several opportunities. Catch-up is possible through Leap-Frogging which is widely used by late entrants. China and India have adopted this approach effectively. The crusade should start with a Minerals Development roadmap. PMDC ( Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation ) and PUNJMIN can take the lead. Most of our mineral deposits remain un-tapped which can be developed to meet our needs. Self-sufficiency in Steel and Copper is achievable. Even lithium is available to produce batteries. Minerals are the basic building blocks of the nation which have been ignored. High grade Silica Sand is available in the north to produce Solar Cells and Semiconductors. India has made major investments in the high-tech Semiconductor sector. In the recently held Mining Conference in Karachi, it was agreed to expand the operations at Thar to meet our energy and fertilizer needs after gasification of the Black Gold. Basics have to be covered; advancement cannot be achieved through imports and borrowing. The party should finally come to an end for nation building to start.

The preceding parts of this series have gradually separated concepts that modern banking has merged. Money used for payments is not the same thing as investment capital. A current account is not economically identical to funds deliberately committed to enterprise. Commercial-bank money creation is not automatically riba, but neither should monetary privilege remain beyond scrutiny. Once these distinctions are accepted, an obvious question arises: how will productive activity actually be financed? No modern economy can function merely by condemning interest. Farmers require seasonal finance. Manufacturers need machinery and working capital. Exporters must bridge the period between production and receipt of foreign proceeds. Families need housing. Governments require infrastructure. Entrepreneurs need capital before their businesses begin earning revenue. A serious alternative to riba must finance all of these activities (see the model of Robobank). The answer is not to replace every conventional loan with musharakah. Nor is it to rename a predetermined financial return as “profit”. Islamic commercial jurisprudence developed several different contractual forms precisely because economic transactions differ. Sale, lease, partnership, advance purchase and manufacturing contracts perform different functions and allocate ownership and risk differently. The real task is to connect financial return with an identifiable economic basis. A useful starting principle is simple: money should not generate a guaranteed return merely because money has been advanced. Return should arise from trade, ownership, service, productive participation or genuine exposure to commercial risk. This does not mean that every legitimate return must fluctuate. A trader may sell an asset for a fixed profit. A landlord may agree a fixed rent. A contractor may charge a predetermined price. A manufacturer may agree in advance to produce goods for a specified consideration. The prohibition of riba does not abolish prices. What matters is what stands behind the price. State Bank of Pakistan itself explains murabaha as a sale rather than a loan: the seller acquires a commodity, discloses its cost and sells it at an agreed profit. SBP similarly recognises mudarabah, musharakah, ijarah, salam and istisna as distinct Islamic financing structures. Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) maintains separate Shariah standards for murabaha, ijarah, salam, istisna and musharakah precisely because each represents a different legal and commercial relationship. The distinction is fundamental. Consider machinery required by an industrial enterprise. A conventional bank may lend Rs.100 million and require repayment of principal plus interest. Under a genuine murabaha structure, the financier purchases identified machinery, assumes ownership during the relevant period and subsequently sells it to the customer at an agreed deferred price. The return is then legally attached to a sale. This difference has substance only if the financier actually acquires what it claims to sell. Ownership cannot be reduced to a momentary paper entry while every risk, liability and practical responsibility remains with the customer from beginning to end. The same principle applies to ijarah. A financier that purchases machinery, vehicles or other productive assets and leases them to a business may legitimately earn rent because it owns an asset whose use is being transferred. Ownership, however, carries obligations. Structural ownership risks cannot simply be transferred wholesale to the lessee while the financier retains only the right to receive money. The issue is thus not whether rent happens to resemble an interest payment in amount. Economic prices often converge. The decisive issue is whether a genuine lease exists. Housing illustrates the point particularly well. Diminishing musharakah has become one of the major financing techniques used in Islamic banking. Under its proper conception, the financier and customer acquire a property jointly. The customer pays rent for the financier’s share and progressively purchases units of that share until sole ownership is achieved. State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has long maintained specific Shariah standards governing Sharikat-ul-Milk and diminishing musharakah. This can provide a defensible alternative to an interest-bearing mortgage. Its legitimacy, however, depends upon genuine co-ownership. If the customer bears every cost and risk from the first day, if the bank’s capital is effectively guaranteed irrespective of what happens to the asset, and if the entire arrangement merely reproduces principal plus benchmarked return, the partnership becomes increasingly formal rather than substantive. The same scrutiny is required in agriculture. Agriculture is ill-suited to rigid debt repayment because its returns depend upon weather, crop disease, market prices, water availability and timing. A farmer may incur losses despite diligence and competence. Classical commercial law contains an instrument remarkably suited to this problem: salam. Under salam, the purchaser pays the price in advance for specified goods to be delivered later. The farmer obtains working capital before harvest. The purchaser acquires a commercial claim to the future crop and assumes the market risk associated with buying it in advance. This is not charity. It is trade. Properly developed agricultural salam markets could provide farmers with liquidity without forcing them into compounding debt when crops fail. Warehousing, quality certification, crop insurance or takaful, commodity exchanges and transparent market information would be necessary to make such financing scalable. Istisna can similarly serve manufacturing, construction and infrastructure. A textile mill, irrigation facility, industrial machine and housing project need not be forced into one universal debt contract. Partnership financing becomes important where future returns are uncertain. Musharakah permits parties to combine capital and share results. Mudarabah separates capital from enterprise: one party provides funds and another skill and management. Return is connected with actual economic performance. Their difficulty is equally obvious. Profit-and-loss sharing cannot work where accounts are unreliable, sales remain hidden, related-party transactions are opaque and litigation takes years. A financier unable to determine actual profit will naturally prefer a fixed receivable. Financial reform requires credible accounts, meaningful audit, digital documentation, effective insolvency laws, reliable registries and quick commercial adjudication. Risk sharing cannot flourish where information itself cannot be trusted. There is, however, another question we rarely ask: why must productive finance remain concentrated in a few large banks? History offers an instructive example. Rabobank did not begin as the international institution known today. Its origins were local Dutch farmers’

When the highest echelons of a state pronounce that the apparatus of governance has completely collapsed, it ceases to be merely the remark of a federal minister. Instead, it becomes a stark, involuntary confession of the internal decay inherent in a post-colonial state structure—a testament that indelibly seals the collective and systemic failure of the ruling class. To any conscious citizen, political worker, or student of history, this acknowledgment contains little novelty; the populace has long been ground to dust by the gears of this obsolete machinery, experiencing its failure as an everyday reality. The true astonishment lies in hearing this unvarnished truth uttered from the very center of power. One is compelled to ask: what intellectual evolution prompts the masters of the state to confess to their own institutional bankruptcy? Is this an enlightened realization paving the way for genuine reform, or is it merely the prelude to a new political experiment—a fresh authoritarian corset designed to tighten the controls of a shifting state arrangement? History stands as a grim witness that whenever the crisis of the state is magnified by its custodians, the ultimate objective is invariably to sabotage constitutional continuity and clear the path for elite capture or adventurous political engineering. Time and again, this tragedy has been inflicted upon the nation’s destiny. The nation has repeatedly witnessed the rise of self-proclaimed saviors who concentrated all fountainheads of power within their own persons, only to leave behind a hollow illusion of stability that dissolved like a house of sand upon their departure, plunging the country into irreparable geographic, economic, and political trauma. Today, ominous signals point toward the resurrection of this very same discredited formula. The echoes of a renewed stranglehold and a controlled democracy emanating from the rhetoric of the interior ministry betray an elite class fundamentally terrified of true popular sovereignty and constitutional supremacy. For the past seventy years, this nation has been systematically denied a genuine democratic evolution because dominant power centers have persistently sought to subordinate all state organs to their exclusive writ. To dismiss this systemic trauma merely as a functional glitch in administration is to indulge in a deliberate evasion of reality. The truth is that this is not the collapse of a mere administrative mechanism, but rather the manifestation of Hamza Alavi’s classic thesis of the over-developed state—a persistent structural crisis dominated by entrenched elite capture. Within this post-colonial framework, the coercive control mechanisms of the British Raj have been preserved intact, where the primary objective of the state remains the extraction of resources and the concentration of power rather than public welfare. When political expression is stifled, electoral outcomes are systematically engineered, and parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp, the resulting paralysis is entirely inevitable. The crisis of governance is, at its core, a profound crisis of legitimacy. No administrative superstructure can endure without the genuine, uncoerced mandate of the people. When state policy-makers declare that the system has collapsed, they are essentially confessing to their own fiscal insolvency and administrative bankruptcy. Yet, the tragedy of this confession lies in its utility: rather than diagnosing the foundational causes, they weaponize this failure as a pretext to tighten their grip on power. History teaches us that whenever economic or administrative pressures mount, the centers of power invariably bypass the spirit of the constitution to erode it further. The dangerous concentration of authority in a few hands, the freefall of economic indicators, and the formulation of policies under the duress of international financial institutions—all while excluding the citizenry from meaningful participation—constitute the real malignancy eating away at the state. Democracy is far more than casting a ballot once every few years; it is an active architecture built on inclusive policymaking, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and the uncompromising protection of fundamental human rights. When these values are systematically strangled, the collapse of governance is not an accident, but a natural law. The priorities of the ruling elite have never accommodated the welfare of the common citizen. State resources are routinely sacrificed at the altar of corporate privileges, elite exemptions, and inflated administrative expenditures, while foundational human rights—education, health, and justice—are systematically withheld from the masses. History offers a relentless warning: states are not experimental laboratories where arbitrary political models can be tested on a whim. From Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracies to Zia-ul-Haq’s Majlis-e-Shoora, and Pervez Musharraf’s devolution experiments, every single top-down engineering project ended exclusively in national fragmentation and internal turmoil. Each time, a new savior arrives claiming to smash the system, only to leave the country deeper in the mire before exiting the stage. Should the interior minister’s declaration be used this time to midwife yet another hybrid experiment or authoritarian arrangement, it will prove fatal to the nation’s remaining political existence. Escaping this vicious cycle of institutional decay demands moving beyond raw emotion and tired conspiracy theories to embrace a rigorous, actionable roadmap for structural reform that must unfold with absolute urgency. First and foremost, political will must be harnessed to draft a comprehensive framework of constitutional and legal reforms that restores parliament to its rightful position of supremacy, ensuring that executive interference in legislation is thoroughly eliminated and parliamentary committees are empowered to reflect genuine public representation. In tandem with this, a revolutionary structural overhaul of the civil and military bureaucracies remains non-negotiable, requiring the archaic and paternalistic colonial-era administrative model to be dismantled and replaced with a modern public service framework rooted entirely in direct public accountability. Furthermore, fiscal autonomy and equitable resource distribution must be granted to the federal units as an imperative measure, systematically redirecting national wealth away from elite extravagance toward foundational public infrastructure, education, and healthcare for the marginalized segments of society. Finally, the judicial system must be thoroughly reformed to guarantee the common citizen swift and affordable access to justice, effectively resolving systemic contradictions through transparent legal recourse rather than arbitrary administrative fiat. The federal interior minister’s warning that the system has collapsed must therefore serve as an

The preceding part of this series examined a question ordinarily left outside discussions on riba: who should create money? It argued that commercial-bank money creation is not, by itself, riba, but that the power to create purchasing power through credit is a matter of public importance requiring transparency, restraint and accountability. One possible reform is to separate transaction money, fully backed by sovereign money, from funds deliberately committed for investment. That proposition leads to an even more fundamental question. What exactly is a bank deposit? The answer appears obvious only because modern banking has merged several economically different relationships into the same institution. A person places salary in a current account because it must be available tomorrow morning. Another person places accumulated savings with a bank hoping to earn a return over five years. A business maintains money for payroll and suppliers. An investor deliberately commits capital to a project knowing that commercial gain is accompanied by the possibility of loss. Calling all these balances “deposits” conceals distinctions that become crucial in a financial order seeking to eliminate riba. There is a basic difference between money and investment. Money held for payment performs the functions of medium of exchange and store of nominal value. Its owner expects Rs.100 deposited today to remain Rs.100 tomorrow and to be transferable on demand. Investment capital performs another function. It is consciously placed in productive activity in expectation of gain and consequently bears the possibility of commercial loss. One cannot logically demand both absolute safety and entrepreneurial return from the same contractual relationship unless somebody else is made to carry the risk. Islamic jurisprudence recognised these distinctions long before modern banking. Funds entrusted purely for safekeeping can constitute amanah. A trustee does not own them and is not ordinarily liable for loss occurring without negligence or misconduct. Where fungible money is transferred to another person with authority to use it and an obligation to return its equivalent, the relationship acquires the character of qard, or loan. State Bank of Pakistan’s own glossary reflects precisely this reasoning. It describes an amanah as property held in trust and states that current accounts may initially be regarded as trust deposits. Once a bank obtains authority to use current-account funds in its business, however, the relationship becomes a loan because the bank must repay the full amount. This point deserves much greater attention. If a bank accepts Rs.100,000 from a customer, is free to use that money for its own financing operations and remains legally bound to repay Rs.100,000 whenever demanded, the customer is not bearing an investment risk. Whatever terminology appears on the account-opening form, economically the bank has received financing from the customer. No difficulty necessarily arises if the customer receives nothing beyond repayment of the amount advanced. The difficulty arises when banking system treats this repayable-at-par money simultaneously as the raw material from which additional financing and monetary claims can be generated. Part II suggested one possible solution: transaction accounts should be treated entirely differently. A current account used for wages, household expenditure, business payments and ordinary transfers should represent protected transaction money. If such balances are fully backed by sovereign money or central-bank reserves, they need not be exposed to the bank’s commercial financing decisions. The account holder would possess money, not an investment claim upon the success of a bank. The bank would provide custody, payments, transfers, cards, digital access and settlement services. It could legitimately charge transparent fees for those services. What it would not receive is free investment capital merely because citizens require access to a payment system. The consequences are significant. Fully backed transaction accounts would remain available on demand and at par. They would not earn an investment return because their owners have assumed no investment risk. Nor would their repayment depend upon the quality of the bank’s commercial portfolio. This is not merely a theological distinction. Modern central banking itself recognises the peculiar character of bank deposits. The Bank of England recently described commercial-bank deposits as liabilities used as money, expected to be redeemable at par on demand and relied upon as a safe store of value. It contrasted them with investment products whose values fluctuate and whose losses are borne by investors. A riba-free financial system should take that distinction seriously. The second category would consist of genuine investment accounts. Here the relationship is entirely different. A customer does not merely park money awaiting payment instructions. He consciously makes capital available for investment and accepts that lawful profit cannot be separated completely from commercial risk. Mudarabah provides one classical framework. One party supplies capital and the other enterprise and expertise. Profit is divided according to an agreed ratio; financial loss, in the absence of negligence or breach by the manager, falls upon the provider of capital. SBP itself explains Islamic investment deposits on this basis: the depositor acts as rabb-ul-maal and the bank as mudarib. Restricted mudarabah allows the investor to specify where the funds may be deployed; unrestricted mudarabah gives the bank wider investment authority. The principle is straightforward. If the depositor wants profit because capital is being employed commercially, the depositor must understand what capital is doing and what risk attaches to it. This is where present banking practice requires closer examination. Islamic banks commonly pool deposits, calculate weighted-average yields and distribute profits under elaborate regulatory rules. SBP presently prescribes profit-distribution arrangements for savings depositors, including minimum distribution requirements linked to the weighted-average gross yield of the institution. It also permits additional hiba in specified circumstances. These measures protect customers against inequitable allocation of profits by banks. Their consumer-protection purpose is understandable. At the same time, an increasingly managed and smoothed return can create in the depositor’s mind an expectation remarkably similar to a conventional savings rate. The crucial question is not whether the return happens to fluctuate by a few basis points. It is whether the depositor actually bears the economic character of an investor. An investment account should identify the pool in

This 14th of August, as the green and white flags go up from Karachi to Khyber and the air fills with the crackle of fireworks, there is a question every young Pakistani must ask themselves: what exactly are we celebrating? Is it merely the fact that a nation was born at the stroke of midnight 79 years ago? Or is it something far more demanding — the unfinished promise of that birth, the dream that millions carried across blood-soaked borders, the conviction that Pakistan would be not just a homeland, but a beacon? Nisid Hajari’s book Midnight’s Furies does not let us off easy. It drags us back to the raw, unvarnished truth of 1947 — and in doing so, it hands our generation something precious: the tools to understand who we are, where we came from, and what we still owe to those who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. Hajari wrote that on 9 August 1947, a train pulls out of Delhi bound for Karachi, 800 miles away. Onboard are Muslim clerks and officials who had served the British-run government of India with distinction. With them are their families, their ribbon-tied files, their children’s toys, their prayer rugs, and the gold jewellery that represented their life’s savings. They are not refugees fleeing in panic. They are pioneers, volunteers for a great experiment — the world’s first modern Muslim nation. As the train whistles out of Delhi, cheers of “Pakistan Zindabad!” drown out the engine. These men and women believe they are building something unprecedented. Something magnificent. They never arrive. Sikh saboteurs — soldiers in all but name, their tiny community having supplied the Indian Army with fighting men far beyond their numbers — have laid gelignite charges along the tracks. The mine detonates. The Pakistan Special shudders. And in that moment, the euphoria of independence meets the savagery of Partition. Hajari, who spent over a year buried in archives across New Delhi, London, and Washington, D.C., reconstructs this tragedy not from myth but from the “demi-official record” — the diaries, army sitreps, embassy cables, and informant reports that tell the real story. And the real story is this: Pakistan was born not in a garden of roses, but in a furnace. The arithmetic of that furnace defies comprehension. One British official, working from casualty reports, put the dead at 200,000. Others, accounting for disease, starvation, and exposure, insist the figure exceeds one million. At least 14 million people were uprooted — the largest forced migration in human history. Western Pakistan was virtually emptied of Hindus and Sikhs; Indian Punjab lost almost all its Muslims. This was carnage on a scale unseen until Rwanda 1994. Yet here is what Hajari forces us to confront: the killing lasted only six weeks. The violence was contained. What was not contained — what metastasised — was the psychological wound. In those weeks, something broke between India and Pakistan that has never been repaired. Leaders on both sides began suspecting each other of complicity in genocide. Mutual mistrust pushed infant nations to war within a year. And Pakistan, flooded with refugees, its economy and bureaucracy teetering on collapse, developed what Hajari calls a ‘deep-seated paranoia’ about its larger neighbour that shapes our politics to this very day. Hajari’s book is unsparing about the failures of leadership that turned Partition’s trauma into perpetual conflict. Nehru and Jinnah — the very architects of freedom — allowed vanity, prejudice, and petty dislike to poison the well. Nehru’s reckless declaration in August 1946 that a strong government would make the Muslim League’s movement “go down” — what Viceroy Wavell called tossing “a match onto dangerously dry kindling” — helped trigger the Great Calcutta Killing, the dress rehearsal for Partition’s horrors. Five thousand dead. Ten to fifteen thousand maimed. The Statesman newspaper, grasping for words, called it “a fury” — a word from mediaeval history. This Independence Day, let us do something radical. Let us honour the dead not by reliving their fears, but by fulfilling their hopes. Jinnah’s address to the Constituent Assembly on 11 August 1947 was crystal clear: ‘You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan.’ He envisioned a secular nation where religion was private, not political. Where Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians would be equal before the law. Where the state would be a servant of all its citizens, not a weapon of the majority. Hajari’s book ends on a note of hard-won wisdom: ‘Only once those mistakes are properly understood and acknowledged, perhaps, will India and Pakistan begin to bridge the vast and dangerous gulf that still divides them.’ Understanding does not mean surrender. Acknowledgement does not mean apology. It means maturity. It means the confidence to say: we know our history, we honour our sacrifices, and we refuse to let the furies of 1947 dictate our future. So when the flag goes up this 14th August, let it mean something new. Let it mean that Pakistan is done being defined by what it fears. Let it mean that we are ready to be defined by what we build — by our universities and our hospitals, our clean rivers and our fair courts, our poets and our scientists, our daughters who dream without limits and our sons who know that strength comes from justice, not just arms.

Since its inception, Pakistan has been confronted with a multitude of complex and interwoven challenges that have persistently constrained its political stability, economic progress, institutional development, and social transformation. While the nature and intensity of these challenges have evolved over time, their cumulative impact has continued to impede the country’s pursuit of sustainable development and national prosperity. Among these enduring national challenges, the governance crisis has emerged as one of the most pressing concerns, posing serious implications for sustainable development, institutional resilience, socioeconomic progress, and the country’s long-term stability. A number of instances can be quoted to highlight the dismal situation of governance in Pakistan. The very first among these is the lack of citizens’ interest in participation. Citizens are not sufficiently aware of their participatory rights; therefore, they do not keep an eye on public officials and don’t raise their voices when their legal rights are violated by the elite class of the state. Moreover, in terms of transparency, Pakistan is far behind the required standards. According to the 2025 Corruption Perception Index published by Transparency International, Pakistan scored 28 out of 100 and ranked 136th out of 182 countries, indicating a high perceived level of public sector corruption. Furthermore, it is our bad luck that the situation of the rule of law has always been in trouble since 1947. Unfortunately, the rule of law has been confined to the conventional concept of law enforcement, internal security, and crime control, while, at the same time, it overlooks the basic elements, including transparency, accountability before the law, and the equal, just, and clear application of the law. Although, the state has numerous accountability committees and agencies to hold corrupt individuals accountable and curb corrupt practices in society. But still, the state is struggling to implement accountability in its true sense. Ignoring the major causes that have led to the deplorable situation of governance in Pakistan would be totally unjust. These include a number of factors that have directly or indirectly facilitated its existence. In this context, political instability is the biggest cause of bad governance in Pakistan. For most of the time, a myopic approach is adopted by political parties to establish their own governments. They remain engaged in the struggle for power while toppling governments by hook or by crook. Likewise, the relevant institutions do not respond immediately to the emergence of new challenges, leading to dearth of responsiveness in institution’s working.   In addition to it, the lack of strategic vision of the political leadership is also a factor which hits the structure of governance in Pakistan. Quite understandably, Political leaders have failed to foresee Pakistan’s emerging challenges and to cope with the persistent challenges that the state has been confronting for a long time. Keeping in view the crunch of governance, whom should be blamed and held accountable? It is the need of the hour that well-crafted and result-oriented policies regarding governance be formulated and effectively implemented to address the issue in its true spirit. Social media should play its crucial role in spreading awareness. Democracy should be strengthened. Posting, transfer, and promotion of bureaucrats should be done on merit. Last but not the least, the right to information should be guaranteed to citizens as provided under Article 19A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. These bold steps can place Pakistan in the list of countries having good governance.