Change we must

Health is the foundation upon which every nation builds its future. More specifically in Pakistan which is underdeveloped. No country can claim sustainable progress while its citizens continue to suffer from preventable diseases, unsafe medical practices, and a healthcare system weakened by negligence and poor governance. Unfortunately, Pakistan finds itself confronting these very challenges, where public awareness remains limited, people prefer malpractice upon the real HCPs, healthcare standards are inconsistently enforced, and accountability is often absent, (absence of accountability is the major issue in my opinion).   The recent reports of children allegedly contracting HIV following treatment at a healthcare facility in Karachi have deeply disturbed the nation. Whole Karachi is feeling a fear to go to any hospital, especially in public sector. Regardless of the outcome of ongoing investigations, the incident has exposed an uncomfortable reality, patient safety cannot be left to chance. A single lapse in infection control, sterilization, blood screening, or injection practices can permanently alter the lives of innocent patients and destroy public confidence in the healthcare system.   Healthcare is not merely about prescribing medicines or performing procedures. It is a responsibility that demands competence, discipline, ethical conduct, and strict adherence to internationally accepted standards. Every hospital, whether public or private, must operate under robust quality assurance systems. Sterilization protocols, infection prevention measures, waste disposal, blood safety, medication management, and continuous staff training are not optional, they are the minimum requirements for safe patient care. Equally concerning is the widespread public attitude toward health. Many people ignore symptoms until illnesses become severe. Self-medication, unqualified practitioners, unnecessary injections, and delayed medical consultation continue to place countless lives at risk. Public health awareness must become a national priority. Prevention is always less costly and more effective than treatment.   However, responsibility does not rest with the public alone. Healthcare institutions must also examine their own shortcomings. In many facilities across Sindh and other parts of Pakistan, shortages of trained professionals, inadequate supervision, poor infection control practices, and weak administrative oversight compromise patient safety. Quality healthcare cannot be delivered where merit is overlooked, competent professionals are undervalued, and management positions are assigned without the necessary expertise and accountability.   Healthcare administration should be treated as a specialized profession. Hospitals are complex organizations that require qualified leaders capable of managing clinical governance, quality improvement, patient safety, risk management, and human resources. Administrative decisions directly affect patient outcomes. Therefore, appointments to key management positions must be based on competence, experience, and professional qualifications rather than favoritism or administrative convenience. Another neglected area is the implementation of quality management systems. Every healthcare facility should maintain active infection control committees, medication safety programs, pharmacovigilance systems, incident reporting mechanisms, and regular internal audits. Compliance with national standards should not be limited to inspection days but should become part of everyday practice.   The role of pharmacists, nurses, laboratory professionals, infection control specialists, and other allied health professionals must also be strengthened. Modern healthcare depends upon multidisciplinary collaboration. Patient safety improves when every healthcare professional performs within clearly defined responsibilities and works together under an effective governance framework. Regulatory authorities also bear a significant responsibility. Licensing alone is insufficient. Regular inspections, transparent investigations, prompt corrective actions, and meaningful penalties for serious negligence are essential to restore public confidence. Accountability should never be selective. Whether the institution is public or private, patient safety must remain the highest priority.   Furthermore, Pakistan must invest substantially in continuous professional education. Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and healthcare workers require regular training in infection prevention, patient safety, antimicrobial stewardship, emergency preparedness, and quality improvement. Competence is not achieved through qualification alone; it must be maintained throughout one’s professional career. The tragedy involving innocent children should not become another forgotten headline. It must serve as a turning point for meaningful healthcare reform. Every adverse event should encourage learning, strengthen systems, and prevent future harm rather than becoming another statistic buried in official reports.   A nation’s healthcare system reflects its collective values. If we tolerate negligence, ignore standards, and compromise merit, we inevitably place every patient at risk. But if we prioritize competence, accountability, transparency, and patient safety, Pakistan can build a healthcare system worthy of public trust.   The health of our people is not merely a medical issue; it is a national responsibility. Every citizen deserves safe treatment, every child deserves protection from preventable harm, and every healthcare institution must be held to the highest standards of professional excellence. The time for complacency has passed. The time for reform is now.

For the Muslim world, and increasingly for Europe, recent developments have become both a matter of interest and concern. Reports indicate that around 60,000 young people from the Muslim-majority country of Morocco entered Spain. Those who have seen the videos circulating on social media can appreciate the scale of the event. Large groups of young people can be seen running toward the border, storming barriers, arriving in overcrowded boats, climbing over high fences, and breaking through metal barricades in an effort to reach Spanish territory. According to reports, these migrants entered the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in North Africa. Their objective was neither invasion nor occupation but rather the pursuit of a better future and improved employment opportunities. Poverty and unemployment in their home country have driven them to seek a new life in Europe. Thousands crossed the sea and border fences together, hoping that their sheer numbers would overwhelm security forces and make it impossible to stop them. Reports also suggest that Spain’s border security had temporary weaknesses at the time. In addition, Spanish courts had recently issued relatively lenient rulings regarding migrants, including granting legal status to nearly 500,000 people who had previously entered the country illegally. The U.S. State Department criticized Spain over what it viewed as policies that encouraged illegal migration. Although Spanish border security forces made considerable efforts to stop the influx, media reports stated that approximately 57 people lost their lives during the crossings. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez made an emergency visit to Ceuta to oversee the government’s response. Authorities reportedly succeeded in returning about 37,000 of the 60,000 migrants to Morocco, but locating and dealing with the remaining 23,000 became a significant issue, raising concerns across Europe. France, Italy, Germany, and other European countries urged Spain to strengthen its border controls. The United States also reacted strongly, drawing comparisons with its own migration challenges at the Mexican border. President Donald Trump cited the incident as proof that constructing a border wall had been the right decision, arguing that without it the United States might have faced a similar situation. Europe’s concern is understandable because of the European Union’s system of open internal borders. Once migrants enter one EU country, they may be able to move onward to others with relatively few obstacles. Spain has long been regarded as one of Europe’s more immigration-friendly countries. I once asked a diplomat friend which European country was the easiest for obtaining a visa, and without hesitation he replied, “Spain.” Morocco is a friendly Muslim nation led by King Mohammed VI, who is widely respected and holds considerable influence. It also has an elected government headed by Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch. This raises an important question: why have Muslim countries not become prosperous and developed enough to attract people from non-Muslim nations rather than losing their own citizens? The same question applies to Pakistan. Our country was created after immense sacrifices, with the vision of establishing a model Islamic state. Millions were displaced and countless lives were lost during Partition in 1947. At that time, Muslims migrated to Pakistan with great enthusiasm and hope. Today, however, many Pakistanis display the same determination to leave the country and settle in Europe. In pursuing this dream, many become victims of human traffickers, while others lose their lives attempting dangerous sea crossings. When the bodies of these young people are returned to their families, it causes unimaginable grief, yet the desire to seek a better future abroad remains as strong as ever. This leads to another important question: why have we failed to make our own countries places of prosperity, freedom, human dignity, and compassion—qualities that many people associate with Western societies today? Why are we unable to provide our citizens with the same respect for human rights and personal freedoms? Religious leaders often criticize the West, condemning its culture and values. They describe Western civilization as morally corrupt and frequently quote verses predicting its eventual decline: “Your civilization will destroy itself with its own dagger.” “A nest built upon a fragile branch cannot endure.” Ironically, many Western societies today fear what they describe as an “Islamic influx.” They argue that some migrants misuse religious freedom, demand the implementation of Islamic law, campaign over issues such as the hijab, and challenge local cultural norms. Some also claim that immigration has contributed to increases in crimes such as child abuse and other offenses. Whether these concerns are justified or exaggerated remains a matter of public debate, but it is undeniable that immigration has become a politically sensitive issue across Europe. Public pressure is mounting on European governments to tighten immigration policies. Western intellectuals also pose a difficult question: if Muslims believe they possess the final divine revelation, a complete way of life, and a preserved holy scripture, why have they not transformed their own societies into places where their young people would choose to remain instead of risking everything to migrate to Europe? Traditional Islamic teachings have long distinguished between the Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam or peace) and lands outside Islamic rule, historically described in classical jurisprudence by terms such as Dar al-Harb (the abode of war). Classical legal literature contains extensive discussions on these concepts and, in certain historical contexts, encouraged Muslims to migrate to Muslim lands whenever possible. Yet many young Muslims today seem unfamiliar with these classical debates, and many contemporary religious scholars appear reluctant to discuss them in detail, perhaps because the realities of the modern world differ significantly from the historical circumstances in which those rulings were developed.

For three decades, the prevailing narrative of the global economy was one of seamless integration. From the design studios of California to the high-tech assembly lines of Shenzhen, the world operated on the assumption that technology was a bridge, not a barrier. However, that era of “borderless innovation” is rapidly giving way to a more fragmented reality. As the United States and China engage in an intensifying rivalry over the foundational technologies of the 21st century artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and 5G a “Silicon Curtain” is descending, reshaping global supply chains and forcing a difficult reckoning for developing nations. The shift marks a transition from a world defined by economic efficiency to one governed by national security. In Washington, the consensus has hardened around the idea that “de-risking” from China is essential to protect intellectual property and maintain a military edge. In Beijing, the drive for “technological self-reliance” has become a central pillar of national survival. What began as a series of trade disputes in 2018 has evolved into a comprehensive decoupling that threatens to bifurcate the global digital ecosystem. The Semiconductor Siege and the AI Arms Race At the heart of this decoupling is the semiconductor the “oil” of the digital age. Advanced microchips are the brains behind everything from smartphones to hypersonic missiles. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Commerce introduced sweeping export controls designed to prevent China from acquiring the high end chips necessary for training generative AI models. The “CHIPS and Science Act” further signaled Washington’s intent to reshore manufacturing, offering billions in subsidies to bring fabrication back to American soil. China has responded with its own set of defensive and offensive measures. Beijing has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into its domestic chip industry via the “Big Fund” and has imposed export restrictions on critical minerals like gallium and germanium materials essential for high-tech manufacturing. This tit-for-tat dynamic has profound implications for AI development. While the U.S. currently leads in algorithmic innovation and hardware design, China possesses a vast reservoir of data and a highly integrated industrial base. As the two powers diverge, the world faces the prospect of two distinct AI “stacks” each with its own standards, ethical frameworks, and hardware requirements. For global corporations, the cost of maintaining two separate supply chains is staggering, with some estimates suggesting a permanent 1 to 5 percent drag on global GDP. The 5G Dilemma: Infrastructure as an Ideology The rivalry is equally visible in the rollout of 5G telecommunications. As the backbone of the “Internet of Things,” 5G infrastructure is more than just a faster cellular network; it is the nervous system of modern cities. The U.S. campaign to exclude Chinese providers like Huawei and ZTE from Western networks, citing security vulnerabilities, has effectively split the world into two camps. Many European and “Five Eyes” nations have aligned with Washington, citing the risks of state-sponsored espionage. Conversely, many nations across Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East have continued to embrace Chinese infrastructure, which is often more affordable and comes with flexible financing. This infrastructure divide creates a “path dependency”: once a country adopts a specific 5G standard, the subsequent software, security protocols, and hardware upgrades are likely to follow the same technical lineage. The “Digital Non-Aligned Movement” Perhaps the most complex fallout of this decoupling is felt in the Global South. Developing nations, many of which are in the midst of their own digital transformations, now find themselves in an uncomfortable position. They are being pressured to choose between the two technological poles, a choice that carries significant economic and diplomatic risks. For a developing economy in Africa or Latin America, U.S. technology offers high security and integration with Western financial markets. However, Chinese technology often provides a lower barrier to entry and a focus on state-led development goals. The danger, according to many economists, is that this “tech-polarization” will lead to a lack of interoperability. If a startup in Nairobi develops an app on a Chinese cloud platform, will it function seamlessly for a user in a market dominated by American standards? Furthermore, the “friend-shoring” of supply chains where production is moved to politically allied nations is creating new winners and losers. Countries like Vietnam, India, and Mexico have seen an influx of investment as manufacturers seek to diversify away from China. However, other developing nations that lack the infrastructure or political alignment to join these new “trusted” supply chains risk being further marginalized. A World of Redundancy and Risk Critics of decoupling argue that the process is not only expensive but potentially futile. The global tech industry is so deeply intertwined that total separation may be impossible without catastrophic economic damage. Apple, for instance, still relies heavily on Chinese assembly, while Chinese tech firms still utilize American software architectures. Moreover, the environmental cost of decoupling is often overlooked. As both superpowers race to build redundant factories and secure mineral supplies, the efficiency gains of globalized production are lost, leading to increased carbon footprints and resource competition. The “Green Transition” itself is at risk, as solar panels and electric vehicle batteries are caught in the crosshairs of trade restrictions. The US-China tech rivalry is no longer a peripheral trade dispute; it is the defining feature of modern geopolitics. The shift from a globalized market to a fractured one represents a fundamental change in how the world innovates and communicates. While “strategic autonomy” may offer a sense of security for the superpowers, it introduces a new layer of volatility for the rest of the world. As we move forward, the challenge for the international community will be to establish a “digital floor” a set of minimum standards and protocols that allow the world to remain connected even as political systems diverge. Without such a framework, the “Fractured Circuit” may not only slow the pace of global innovation but also deepen the divide between the connected and the disconnected, leaving the most vulnerable nations to navigate a world of incompatible systems and dwindling choices.

The second part of this series explained why public finance and Constitutional Political Economy (CPE) ask different questions. Public finance ordinarily examines what taxes governments should impose and how revenue should be spent. CPE asks who makes those choices, under what rules, for whose benefit and subject to what restraints. That distinction leads to an important conclusion: there is no politically neutral tax system. Tax policy is often presented as a technical exercise. Economists compare direct and indirect taxes, estimate elasticity, calculate effective rates and recommend reforms intended to improve efficiency. Governments describe exemptions as incentives, withholding provisions as enforcement mechanisms and consumption taxes as instruments of broad-based revenue mobilisation. Such terminology creates the impression that taxation operates independently of political power. It does not. Every tax decision identifies those who will pay, those who will collect, those who will receive concessions and those whose activities will remain beyond effective enforcement. A tax may be neutral between two products in an economic model, but the process through which it is enacted and administered can rarely be neutral between organised interests, social classes or political constituencies. The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) itself recognises that taxes affect taxpayers differently according to their income and other socio-economic characteristics. They alter behaviour and influence the distribution of income both directly and through the public expenditure they finance. Taxation is, thus, not merely a device for transferring money to the treasury. It changes economic opportunities and affects the relationship between citizen and state. The celebrated Mirrlees Review sought to design a coherent tax system in which similar activities were treated consistently, and economic choices were not distorted without good reason. This is a valuable objective. Neutrality can reduce arbitrary discrimination and prevent tax considerations from dominating productive decisions. Nevertheless, even the most carefully designed system must decide which activities are alike, which differences justify special treatment and how equity should be balanced against efficiency. Those choices necessarily embody judgments about society. The idea of neutrality becomes more problematic when it is transferred from theory to a state characterised by unequal political influence. Consider a general sales tax (GST). In theory, a broad-based value added tax (VAT) imposed at a uniform rate minimises distortions and preserves the chain of documentation. In practice, exemptions, reduced rates, special schedules, fixed taxes, withholding taxes (unique in Pakistan even for VAT/GST!) and sector-specific arrangements are introduced during the political process. The final statute may bear little resemblance to the neutral instrument initially proposed. The same is true of income tax. Horizontal equity requires persons with similar ability to pay to bear comparable burdens. Vertical equity requires those possessing greater capacity to contribute more. In Pakistan, however, the legal character assigned to income often determines the burden more decisively than the taxpayer’s actual economic capacity. Salary, business income, capital gains, dividends, property income and agricultural income may all be subjected to different regimes, rates or jurisdictions. These distinctions are not always indefensible. Different types of income may require different collection methods. The constitutional distribution of taxing powers must also be respected. However, a CPE analysis asks why particular differences survive, who benefits from them and whether their stated rationale corresponds to their actual effect. Tax exemptions provide the clearest illustration. Governments describe them as instruments for attracting investment, supporting industries, protecting vulnerable groups or promoting exports. Some concessions may serve legitimate public purposes. Others constitute expenditure conducted through the tax system without the scrutiny ordinarily applied to direct spending. Pakistan’s official Tax Expenditure Report 2026 estimated revenue forgone during fiscal year 2024–25 through income tax, sales tax and customs concessions at approximately Rs. 2.353 trillion (excluding sales tax on POL products to deprive provinces of their constitutional right, replacing it with petroleum levy). Of this amount, sales tax concessions accounted for about Rs. 1.274 trillion, income tax concessions for Rs. 579.70 billion and customs concessions for Rs. 499.14 billion. These are not accounting curiosities. They represent choices about which persons, sectors and transactions receive preferential treatment, and which taxpayers must bear the resulting revenue burden. A concession granted through the tax law is economically similar to public expenditure. If the state collects Rs. 100 from a citizen and transfers it to an industry, the transaction appears in the budget. If the state allows that industry to retain Rs. 100 that would otherwise have been payable, the distributive effect may be comparable, but the benefit is less visible. This opacity is politically useful. Direct subsidies attract public attention and legislative scrutiny. Tax concessions are buried in schedules, exemptions and statutory notifications. Their beneficiaries are often concentrated and organised, while the cost is dispersed across millions of taxpayers and consumers. Constitutional Political Economy explains why such arrangements persist. A concentrated group has a strong incentive to lobby for a benefit worth billions of rupees. Each member of the general public, bearing only a fraction of the cost, has little incentive or capacity to oppose it. What appears to be an anomaly in tax design may be the predictable result of unequal political organisation. Withholding taxation presents another example. It is defended as an efficient method of collecting revenue from an economy with weak compliance. In limited circumstances, deduction/collection at source is entirely justified. Salary taxation (pay roll taxes) and payments to non-residents commonly require withholding systems in many jurisdictions. Pakistan, however, has transformed withholding from a collection technique into a parallel tax regime. According to the Revenue Division Year Book 2024–25, withholding taxes contributed 60 percent of total income tax collection in that year. Collection through withholding reached approximately Rs. 3.382 trillion. This reliance changes the institutional character of income taxation. The tax administration increasingly obtains revenue from transactions rather than determining taxpayers’ actual net income and ability to pay. Banks, employers, utilities, property registrars, businesses and other intermediaries become unpaid tax collectors. Persons already operating within the documented economy bear recurring deductions/collections in advance, compliance costs and the burden of seeking adjustments or refunds (hardly allowed automatically in

On August 14, 2026 the independence day was celebrated with great fanfare. This year a Norwegian team was also here to foster business opportunities. Norway is one of the five Nordic Welfare states (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland). Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide arrived in Islamabad on August 13, 2026 on a commercial flight. He carried his own luggage. The embassy staff received him and drove him to his hotel. He then held meetings with the foreign minister, prime minister and the chief of defense forces. Being a welfare state, every citizen there is covered from cradle to grave, with no worries. No one is left out to rot in the cold. The Government Pension Fund Global of Norway is valued at $2.39 trillion. Surplus oil and gas revenues are invested to support public services and pensions. During my days at the Literacy Commission, we received a telephone call from the Embassy of Norway. A visiting delegation wanted to meet the Director of the Punjab office. As adviser I was present in the meeting. We were surprised by their agenda. About 40,000 Pakistanis reside in Norway who get married to girls of their own village. These brides then join their husbands to live in the new land. The embassy was very keen to open a school in their home town to educate and train them to assimilate with the Nordic way of life. The purpose was total inclusion with no exclusion. It reminded me of Allama Iqbal’s verse, ‘Har Fard Hai Millat Kay Muqadar Ka Sitara’ (Every individual is the rising star of the nation). No one can be left behind to drag down the nation. While freed colonial states like India and Pakistan have failed to overcome the menace of poverty, China has succeeded. It calls for major soul searching. While the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is on track to dominate the world, we lag behind. Human development is at the core of the Chinese development model. Education and health are taken very seriously. The state acts like a mother; it facilitates its citizens. Resources are protected and spent on the welfare of the people. The PRC has a single party system that focuses primarily on the economic emancipation of the entire nation, not only of a selected few. In recent years India has advanced economically, but poverty persists mainly because of the uneven sharing of resources and opportunities. Norway presents a model of harmony where human freedom and economic growth have been balanced. In the original Pakistan Peoples Party manifesto, it was termed Mixed Economy or Islamic Socialism. While some basic industrialization was needed in the country, for which SOEs (State Owned Enterprises) were created, the nationalization of running industries did not sit well. Perhaps the loss of C.M. Latif’s BECO was the biggest loss, which should have been reversed through de-nationalization. Dr Muhammad Amjad Saqib of the Akhuwat Foundation believes that poverty can be overcome through freedom of mind and easy access to financing. His foundation provides interest-free loans while running a residential university with no fee. The Indus Hospital has a similar model of providing medical coverage free of cost. Despite these private efforts, poverty remains a major challenge for Pakistan. Equitable distribution of resources requires a major reduction in state expenses. Like time, public money has to be carefully handled, as it is always in short supply. Flamboyance, fanfare and protocol consume resources which could be put to better use. Freedom for all comes through sharing and hand holding, not sloganeering. I am not sure if the visiting foreign minister was impressed or concerned by our style of celebrating our independence. Norwegian investments will be a test of the success of his visit. But the poor fellow had to carry his own luggage on the way back and take a taxi upon arrival to reach his residence unnoticed.

Our discussion of Bulleh Shah in Part IV concluded with a question: Who are we when power can no longer name us? Bulleh Shah dismantled the identities imposed upon the human person by lineage, orthodoxy and social hierarchy. Waris Shah takes the inquiry into the institutions governing everyday life. He shows what happens when two human beings attempt to live according to the freedom Bulleh imagined. Heer is celebrated as Punjab’s greatest love story. To describe it merely as a romance, however, is to conceal its intellectual achievement. Earlier poets narrated the sufferings of Heer and Ranjha; Waris Shah’s classic poetic work Heeer (1766) placed an entire social order on trial. Shafqat Tanvir Mirza rightly observed that Waris treated the story through the “politics, economy and cultural values” lived by the people of his period. His poem contains a devastating criticism of poor governance, institutional corruption, religious exploitation, arrogance of the wealthy and misery of those without power. Love provides the narrative, but power determines its outcome. Waris Shah wrote against the background of eighteenth-century political disintegration. Invasions, weakening imperial authority, struggles among local forces and economic insecurity had destabilised Punjab. Waris Shah was not attached to a royal court capable of insulating him from ordinary suffering. His Heer therefore became more than a reconstruction of an old legend. It preserved Punjab’s speech, customs and collective memory while exposing the institutions through which privilege protected itself. Heer is central to this achievement because she is not a passive beloved. She recognises Ranjha, brings him into her father’s household as a herdsman, arranges opportunities to meet him and openly asserts her choice when the relationship is discovered. She possesses intelligence, desire and moral agency. Her freedom is tolerated only while it remains invisible and does not threaten the authority of the family. The moment Heer chooses her own future, affection turns into surveillance. Her body becomes the bearer of family honour, and marriage becomes the means through which that honour is restored. Heer does not ask permission to feel. She declares a commitment already formed through conscience and love. Her language is especially significant. She does not present Ranjha as an object she wishes to acquire. She has offered her own life and accepted responsibility for that choice. In a society where marriage joins families, properties and status groups, such self-determination is revolutionary. The dispute is not simply between one prospective husband and another. Ranjha represents Heer’s autonomous choice; the Kheras represent the settlement arranged for her by others. Her family treats marriage as a transaction carrying consequences for lineage, reputation and power. Heer insists upon treating it as a union requiring the will of the persons whose lives it determines. میں تاں منگ رنجھیٹے دی ہو چکی اساں منگ درگاہ تھیں لیا رانجھا Main tāṅ mang Ranjheṭe dī ho chukkī Asāṅ mang dargāh thīṅ liyā Rānjhā I have already been pledged to Ranjha; from the divine court itself I received him. اساں جان رانجھیٹے دے پیش کیتی لکھ کھیڑیاں نوں چا گھولدی ہے Asāṅ jān Ranjheṭe de pesh kītī Lakkh Kheṛiāṅ nūṅ chā gholdī hai I have laid my life before Ranjha; I would sacrifice a hundred thousand Kheras for him. This is the political economy hidden within the romance. Property is not limited to land, cattle and wealth. Patriarchal authority extends the idea of ownership to women. A daughter may be cherished as long as she accepts the future selected for her. Once she claims ownership of her own will, love within the family becomes conditional. Research on Heer similarly identifies the family, property, mosque, qazi, feudal hierarchy and ruling elite as interconnected institutions shaped by economic interest. Kaido is the most visible agent of this system, though he should not be dismissed as a solitary villain. He represents social surveillance: the resentful custodian of conformity who observes, reports and converts private happiness into public scandal. Power does not survive through rulers alone. It recruits relatives, neighbours and self-appointed guardians of morality who internalise its prohibitions and enforce them upon others. Kaido’s triumph begins when Heer and Ranjha’s love is no longer treated as a human relationship but as an offence against collective honour. The family then requires an institution capable of turning its demand into a lawful and religious command. The qazi enters at precisely this point. Waris Shah does not attack faith. He exposes the appropriation of faith by those serving property and patriarchy. The qazi is called because parental pressure has failed to secure Heer’s consent. Religious vocabulary is employed to present submission as virtue and resistance as sin. Heer answers him from within the moral tradition he claims to represent. She insists that genuine faith cannot be separated from truth, and that her union with Ranjha possesses a reality no ceremonial decree can erase. The surviving text presents an extended confrontation in which the qazi invokes authority while Heer asserts conscience and consent. Unable to persuade her, institutional power reveals its coercive core. The qazi threatens punishment and demands that she accept the Khera marriage. قاضی بنھ نکاح تے گھت ڈولی نال کھیڑیاں دے دِتی تور میاں Qāzī bannh nikāh te ghat ḍolī Nāl Kheṛiāṅ de dittī tor miyāṅ The qazi bound the marriage and placed her in the palanquin; she was sent away with the Kheras. ہیر کھیڑیاں نال نہ تُرے مولے پیا پِنڈ دے وچ ہے شور میاں Hīr Kheṛiāṅ nāl na ture, maulā piyā Piṇḍ de vich hai shor miyāṅ Heer would not willingly go with the Kheras; an uproar filled the village. کھیڑے گھن کے ہیر نوں رواں ہوئے جویں مال نوں لے وَگے چور میاں Kheṛe ghin ke Hīr nūṅ ravāṅ hoe Jiveṅ māl nūṅ lai vagge chor miyāṅ The Kheras took Heer and moved away, like thieves driving stolen cattle. The comparison is Waris Shah’s own and is among the most revealing images in the poem. The final line strips the ceremony of its respectable appearance. There has been a qazi, a marriage procession, jewellery, property and public