Kabul should show action, not just words

The latest developments surrounding Imran Khan’s medical examination raise an important question that goes beyond politics: how should a state treat the health and basic rights of a prisoner? According to his sister, Uzma Khan, Imran complained of health problems that he believed were linked to his prolonged solitary confinement. She also described confusion surrounding her visit to the jail and her subsequent arrival at PIMS, where she unexpectedly met her brother during his medical examination. These are her claims and should be independently verified by the relevant authorities. The Supreme Court had already directed that Imran Khan be taken to Shifa International Hospital for a medical examination and that information about his health should not become a political tool. That order should be implemented clearly and without unnecessary controversy. There is also a reasonable question about family access. Imran Khan is a prisoner, and prison authorities have legitimate security responsibilities. But those responsibilities should not unnecessarily prevent close family members from meeting an incarcerated person, particularly when there are genuine concerns about his health. Clear rules, proper security checks and transparent procedures can protect both the prisoner and the state. This position should not depend on political affiliation. When Imran Khan was in power, his government was also criticised for its treatment and public comments regarding prisoners. He and his supporters sometimes appeared dismissive of the concerns of incarcerated opponents. That history should be remembered—not to justify similar treatment today, but to underline an important principle: justice should not change with the identity of the prisoner.

The inflation rate has finally slipped back into single digits, and this is genuinely good news. The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics has confirmed that annual inflation fell to 9.2 percent in July 2026, down from 11.1 percent in June. After three straight months of double-digit readings in April, May and June, this drop deserves to be welcomed. It signals that the aggressive monetary tightening and stabilisation measures of the past year are finally showing results. Businesses that had been struggling with unpredictable input costs can now plan with slightly more confidence, and policymakers at the State Bank will have room to consider further easing of interest rates. But the government must resist the temptation to treat this number as a victory lap. A single month of improved statistics does not undo years of erosion in ordinary people’s purchasing power. For the average household in Lahore, Karachi or Peshawar, a fall from 11.1 percent to 9.2 percent is not something felt at the kitchen table. Prices of flour, cooking oil, vegetables and electricity remain far above where they stood two or three years ago. The inflation rate measures the pace of increase, not the level of prices, and that distinction matters enormously to families who are still paying inflated rates for basic goods every single day. The government also needs to be honest about how fragile this improvement is. A large part of the drop is due to the base effect, as last year’s high prices make this year’s comparison look better on paper. Energy prices remain volatile, the rupee is still under pressure, and any external shock, whether from global oil markets or domestic tax measures, could push inflation back into double digits within months. Claiming credit now, without acknowledging these risks, would be premature and would mislead the public about how far there is still to go. Real relief will only come when wages catch up with the cumulative price increases of recent years, when utility bills stop consuming a disproportionate share of household income, and when the cost of food staples becomes predictable again. None of that is reflected in a single month’s inflation reading. The government would do better to treat this figure as a modest and welcome data point, not as proof that the economic crisis facing ordinary Pakistanis has passed. Until people actually feel the difference in their monthly budgets, talk of relief remains premature.

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.

Iran has told Pakistan that it is ready to talk with the United States again. This is good news. It gives hope that a long and dangerous conflict may finally move toward peace. According to reports, Iran wants the talks to happen step by step. The first step would be about the Strait of Hormuz. The next step would be about frozen Iranian money. The last step would be about the nuclear programme. Iran has also made it clear that it will not accept any plan to build a new route through the Strait of Hormuz. This waterway is too important for the world’s oil trade, and Iran sees any move to bypass it as a threat to its own control. Pakistan has a chance to play an important role here. Pakistan already helped bring Iran and America together once. That happened in Islamabad on June 17, 2026, when both sides signed an understanding. It led to a rare direct meeting between Iranian and American officials in Switzerland. Qatar also helped by hosting a round of talks in Doha. But that effort did not last. Talks broke down. Tensions turned into military conflict. Both sides blamed each other. Yet the fact that Iran is now willing to talk again shows that diplomacy is not dead. It shows that even after war, countries can choose peace over more fighting. The world should support this new chance for talks. War brings only loss. Diplomacy, even when it is slow and difficult, is always the better path. But support for talks does not mean forgetting the past. The United States must be honest about what happened last time. It broke the Islamabad memorandum once. This is not a small matter. When a country breaks a signed agreement, it becomes harder for others to trust it again. Iran has every right to ask why it should believe American promises this time. If Washington wants Iran to return to the table in good faith, it must do more than talk. It must offer strong and clear guarantees. These guarantees should be written down. They should be backed by other countries, including Pakistan and Qatar, who can act as witnesses. Words alone are not enough after a broken promise. Actions and guarantees are what will rebuild trust. Pakistan is in a good position to help here. It has earned the trust of both Iran and America through its past role. It should use this position to make sure this second chance is not wasted, and to make sure that Iran gets the guarantees it needs before it agrees to sit down again.

The Punjab Revenue Authority has taken a step that deserves praise. It has banned handwritten and manual receipts for hotels, restaurants, coffee shops and marriage halls. These businesses must now use the Electronic Invoice Management System, known as EIMS, to issue receipts. This is a small change on paper, but it can bring a big shift in how Punjab collects tax. For years, many businesses in Punjab have used handwritten slips or given no receipt at all. This made it easy to hide real sales. A shop could tell the tax authority one number and keep the true earnings elsewhere. Customers rarely questioned this, since a handwritten slip looked normal. This habit cost the province huge amounts of tax revenue every year. The new rule closes this gap. Every sale through EIMS gets recorded electronically. This makes it much harder for a business to underreport what it earns. The PRA has also set firm penalties. Businesses that ignore the rule can face fines between four hundred thousand and one million rupees. Repeat offenders risk having their premises sealed for up to a month. These penalties send a clear message that documentation is no longer optional. This move fits into a wider global pattern. Countries that have moved to digital invoicing have generally seen tax collection improve. Pakistan has struggled for decades with a low tax to GDP ratio, and informal cash transactions are one major reason. Punjab’s decision to enforce digital receipts is a practical, low cost way to fix part of this problem. However, this step should be the beginning, not the end. Digital receipts alone do not close every loophole. A business can still issue a proper digital receipt while asking the customer to pay in cash outside the system. The real solution is to make digital payments themselves mandatory alongside digital receipts. If customers are required to pay through cards, mobile wallets or bank transfers, then every transaction leaves a financial trail that is far harder to manipulate. This is simply how modern economies function. From small cafes to large retail chains, digital payments have become the norm across much of the world. Pakistan is lagging behind, and Punjab has an opportunity to lead the way. Encouraging or eventually requiring digital transactions would also benefit ordinary consumers, who would gain better protection through verified records of what they paid and for what. The Punjab government has taken a sensible first step. The next step should be mandatory digital transactions, not just mandatory digital receipts.

This editorial is based on a news story published in Minute Mirror newspaper. Punjab’s government promised that buying medical supplies centrally would save public money. It has done the opposite. Minute Mirror’s investigation into the province’s Rs40 billion procurement deal for surgical and medical disposables shows a system that looks broken from top to bottom. The numbers speak for themselves. Out of 125 medical device categories, 50 attracted only one bidder. That is 40 percent of the entire deal decided without any real competition. When only one company bids for a contract, there is no pressure to keep prices fair. This is not how public procurement should work. The price hikes are shocking. Surgical blades that should cost around Rs14 are being bought for Rs 78. Sutures that cost Rs77 are now priced at Rs 289. Even simple IV cannulas and blood transfusion sets have jumped far beyond reasonable benchmark rates. These are not luxury items. These are basic supplies used every single day in emergency rooms and operating theatres across Punjab’s public hospitals. Taxpayers were told centralizing this system would bring bulk discounts. Instead, it appears to have opened the door to inflated rates and limited competition. Even more troubling, the final financial outcomes seem to contradict objections raised earlier by vendors before the Grievance Redressal Committee. Such contradictions cannot be brushed aside. They must be explained clearly and honestly. This is public money. It belongs to the people of Punjab, not to a handful of favoured suppliers. The Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department owes the public a full explanation. An independent inquiry should be launched immediately. Every contract award must be reviewed, and every price hike must be justified. Minute Mirror urges the provincial government to act now. Transparency is not optional when public health and public money are both at stake.