How to empower women economically

By Dr Sajid Shiek Pakistan’s social protection programmes have helped many vulnerable families. The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) and its health and nutrition-linked initiatives are meant to support mothers, children, and low-income households. BISP’s Nashonuma programme is described by the programme itself as a conditional cash transfer initiative for health and nutrition, and it works through facilitation centres at government health facilities. In Sindh, the Mother and Child Support Program, also known as MAMTA, is similarly designed to provide cash support to pregnant and lactating women while linking assistance with regular health checkups. These efforts are important and deserve recognition. At the same time, public programmes should also be reviewed for how they affect service delivery inside already crowded health facilities. Having worked as a Medical Officer in the Health Department since 2014, I have seen that the implementation of these programmes in government hospitals can create practical difficulties, especially in rural areas. This is not a criticism of the welfare idea itself. It is a concern about how the system is being managed. Many rural government hospitals in Sindh already face limited space, staff shortages, and pressure on basic resources. When programme-related procedures are carried out in the same facilities, the number of visitors increases further. In some centres, outpatient attendance has risen sharply, not only because of illness, but also because beneficiaries must visit hospitals to complete formalities linked to these programmes. As a result, outpatient departments become crowded for much of the day. Doctors and paramedical staff must divide their time between patient care and administrative work. Medicines, supplies, and other hospital resources are used more quickly, which can affect patients who come for treatment of genuine medical problems. Crowding also makes infection prevention more difficult. The World Health Organization says infection prevention and control is essential for safe and quality healthcare, and that without effective IPC, quality health care delivery is not possible. In busy facilities, long queues and congested waiting areas can increase the risk of spreading communicable diseases, especially among pregnant women, infants, and older patients. Another issue that deserves attention is the possible effect on family planning services. Financial support linked to pregnancy and safe delivery can encourage maternal care, but policymakers should also consider whether such incentives are fully aligned with broader reproductive health and population management goals. This is an area that needs careful assessment rather than assumptions. The burden is not only physical. Healthcare workers are also under pressure. The WHO has noted that high levels of stress, burnout, and workforce strain are linked to staff shortages, unsafe working conditions, and stressful environments, and that at least a quarter of health and care workers reported anxiety, depression, and burnout symptoms between January 2020 and April 2022. In crowded facilities, these pressures can grow further and affect the quality of care. The solution does not require reducing social welfare programmes. It requires better coordination. A practical step would be to establish separate BISP and MAMTA facilitation centres outside hospitals, or at least in dedicated administrative units with separate staff. This would allow beneficiaries to receive support without interrupting clinical work. Hospitals could then focus on diagnosis, treatment, emergency care, maternal services, immunization, and disease prevention. Better coordination between social protection and health departments would reduce congestion, improve infection control, and allow medical staff to spend more time on patient care. It would also make the welfare system more efficient and easier for beneficiaries to use. Pakistan does not need to choose between social protection and healthcare. Both are public responsibilities, and both should strengthen each other. If welfare administration is kept separate from clinical services, hospitals can remain focused on healing, while social programmes continue to support the poor in a more effective way. This issue deserves review at the policy level. A small structural change could improve both healthcare delivery and social protection outcomes across the country. The writer is a senior Medical Officer. He can be reached at doctorsajid07@gmail.com

By Dhani Bux Wassan Peace cannot be kept by force it can be achieved by understanding (Albert Einstein). In an increasingly interconnected world, disputes and tensions among nations have become more complex, involving geopolitical rivalries, ethnic and religious conflicts, ideological differences, civil unrest, and cyber warfare. These challenges threaten global peace and stability, and destroy the hustle and bustle of cities, turning them into ashes. These assaults lead to violence against innocent people . Amidst humanitarian crises and violence, diplomacy plays a crucial role in maintaining global peace, stability, and mutual prosperity among nations. Diplomacy is the most effective way to mediate disputes among nations through negotiations and table talks, preventing major conflicts and saving thousands of innocent lives. It is a manifestation of wisdom and dialogue. Modern conflicts are far more violent and complex than traditional wars. They arise from the struggle for power, competition over resources, territorial disputes, political instability, nationalism, separatism, and economic inequality. These conflicts have transformed cities into ruins, leaving streets littered with debris and countless lives lost. Millions of people have been displaced, deprived of education, healthcare, and shelter, and forced to live in extreme poverty. They have also left mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and children waiting in vain for their loved ones who never returned from the battlefield. Now, let us turn our attention to the Israel–Palestine war. Since October 7, 2023, the conflict has continued for more than 1,000 days. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, more than 73,000 Palestinians have lost their lives, while millions have been displaced and face severe humanitarian conditions. Similarly, the Russia–Ukraine war has continued for more than 1,600 days. The conflict has destroyed homes, schools, hospitals, and vital infrastructure, forcing millions to flee their homes and seek refuge in neighboring countries. History reminds us that when regional conflicts escalate into world wars, the world loses its path to peace. The First and Second World Wars claimed millions of lives and devastated entire nations. If diplomacy fails and violence prevails, humanity risks repeating the tragedies of the past. Therefore, dialogue, cooperation, and peaceful negotiation remain the only sustainable path. As modern conflicts continue to grow the importance of diplomacy cannot be overstated. Diplomacy provides nations with a peaceful means of resolving disputes through dialogue and compromise rather than violence. It prevents misunderstandings from escalating into armed conflicts and helps build trust and cooperation among nations. Strong diplomatic relations create a stable environment that encourages economic growth, attracts foreign investment, expands trade, and creates employment opportunities. Moreover, diplomacy facilitates humanitarian assistance, strengthens regional cooperation, and promotes lasting peace.In an increasingly interconnected world, it remains the most effective instrument for achieving peace, stability, and shared prosperity. History demonstrate that diplomacy repeatedly succeeded where military cops failed .The Camp David Accords (1978) ended decades of hostility between Egypt and Israel, proving that persistent dialogue can transform long-standing enemies into peace partners. Similarly, the Good Friday Agreement (1998) brought an end to years of violence in Northern Ireland through negotiation and political compromise. The Dayton Peace Agreement (1995) ended the devastating Bosnian War, while the Indus Waters Treaty (1960) between Pakistan and India has endured despite multiple wars, demonstrating that diplomatic agreements can survive even during periods of intense political tension. These examples illustrate that meaningful dialogue, mutual respect, and sustained negotiations often achieve what military force cannot. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wisely observed, “More than ever before in human history, we share a common destiny. We can master it only if we face it together.” In modern world conflicts strengthening diplomacy is essential for building a peaceful, stable, and prosperous future. Governments should prioritize dialogue over confrontation, invest in skilled diplomacy, and promote mutual trust through regular communication. International organizations, regional alliances, and civil society also have an important role in facilitating peaceful negotiations and resolving disputes before they escalate into violence. At the same time, nations must uphold international law, respect sovereignty, and work together to address shared challenges such as climate change, terrorism and cyber threats. By embracing cooperation instead of conflict, diplomacy can prevent wars, protect human lives, and lay the foundation for lasting global peace and sustainable development. To conclude, diplomacy remains the cornerstone of peace and stability in an increasingly turbulent world. While modern conflicts have become more complex due to geopolitical rivalries, technological advancements, and transnational threats, dialogue and cooperation continue to offer the most effective path to lasting solutions. Military force may end battles, but only diplomacy can build enduring peace, restore trust, and promote mutual understanding among nations. As global challenges continue to transcend borders, the international community must strengthen diplomatic institutions, uphold international law, and foster a culture of cooperation. A peaceful and prosperous future depends not on the power of weapons, but on the wisdom of dialogue and the commitment to resolve differences through diplomacy. (The writer is Larkana Cadet College student)

By Engr. Saqlain Abid Political Commentator and NFPA-Certified Electrical Engineer   Elections are the vital organ of a living democracy. If they are conducted according to the people’s choice, without interference, on equal grounds, and with the consensus of all democratic participants, then the state not only remains in good health but also flourishes with the hope and commitment promised before the elections.   For the first time in the history of Pakistan, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) elections are not being held on a single polling day. Instead, the electoral process has been divided into three different phases—27 July, 8 August, and 20 August 2026. This unusual arrangement raises several important questions. Why is the state preparing this electoral model? What are the conditions on the ground that necessitated such a strategy? More importantly, how could this experiment influence Pakistan’s national elections next year?   The political environment surrounding these elections has already become highly contested. The major political force JAAC has been banned by the government, and several of its leaders have been detained. The party has consequently boycotted the elections. PTI, another major opposition force, has also chosen to boycott the electoral process. According to its leadership, the party has been forced to contest only through independent candidates rather than under its official party platform. PTI argues that the government has failed to provide the safety, guarantees, and political environment necessary for free and fair elections. Under such circumstances, the party believes participation would merely legitimize a process it does not trust.   On the other hand, the ruling coalition, led by PML-N and PPP, has entered the campaign with promises of development projects, including new motorways and business initiatives aimed at attracting voters. While development remains an important component of any election campaign, questions regarding electoral credibility continue to overshadow these promises.   In principle, elections should be transparent, efficient, and completed within the shortest possible time. If technological solutions such as secure online systems become feasible in the future, they may further reduce the chances of manipulation. However, extending the polling process over three different days also creates a debate. While supporters argue that it makes election management easier, critics believe that a prolonged process increases opportunities for allegations of interference and weakens public confidence.   The government should have taken all political parties on board before announcing such an unprecedented electoral model. A genuinely inclusive process requires the participation of every major democratic stakeholder. JAAC, which commands significant public support in parts of Azad Kashmir, should have been engaged through political dialogue rather than exclusion. The credibility of elections depends not only on voting day but also on the perception that every political voice has been given an equal opportunity to participate.   Pakistan has previously criticized India for conducting elections in Jammu and Kashmir while sections of the local political leadership remained outside the process. At the time, Islamabad argued that elections held without broad political participation reflected only a procedural exercise rather than the genuine will of the people. The obvious question now is what circumstances have led Pakistan toward a model that some critics argue resembles the same approach.   Some political analysts believe that the AJK elections may serve as a pilot project to test a phased electoral model before its possible application across Pakistan during future general elections. Whether this perception is accurate or not, the debate itself demonstrates the level of public skepticism surrounding the process.   Another factor attracting attention is the role of the Chief Election Commissioner, whose tenure continues to face criticism following the February 2024 general elections. Allegations raised by former Rawalpindi Commissioner Liaquat Ali Chattha regarding manipulation of election results remain part of Pakistan’s political discourse, despite subsequent developments in the case. These controversies have inevitably shaped public perceptions regarding electoral transparency.   If voter turnout remains significantly low because of political boycotts and public distrust, the legitimacy of the exercise may come under further scrutiny. It is therefore the moral responsibility of the government and the Election Commission to create an environment where every democratic force feels secure enough to participate and where no stakeholder can reasonably question the fairness of the process.   The electoral process ultimately determines the political shelf life of a state. When governments emerge through elections widely accepted by the public, trust between the people and the state grows stronger. When that trust weakens, political polarization deepens, frustration increases, and hostile external actors find greater opportunities to exploit internal divisions. With Balochistan already facing serious security challenges and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa confronting persistent instability, any controversy surrounding the AJK electoral process may further strengthen perceptions that democratic space is shrinking rather than expanding.   Ultimately, the success of these elections will not be measured solely by administrative efficiency but by whether the people of Azad Kashmir believe that their voices were freely heard and genuinely counted. A credible electoral process strengthens democracy; a disputed one risks weakening the very foundations upon which democratic legitimacy depends.