Pakistan’s Courts Are Running Out of Time

By Mehak Ali Pakistan is a country united by diverse cultures, languages, and provinces. Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Azad Jammu and Kashmir together form a nation blessed with breathtaking mountains, mighty rivers, vast deserts, fertile plains, and a strategically significant location. These natural blessings make Pakistan one of the most important countries in South Asia. ‎Yet, despite these advantages, millions of citizens continue to struggle with basic issues. Every day, news headlines report murders, sexual violence, malnutrition, unemployment, floods, illiteracy, inflation, gas shortages, electricity outages, and rising fuel prices. These are not isolated incidents; they are challenges that affect the daily lives of ordinary Pakistanis. ‎Citizens pay taxes with the expectation that the government will provide quality education, healthcare, infrastructure, security, and economic opportunities. When these expectations remain unfulfilled, frustration naturally grows. Good governance is not measured by speeches or publicity but by improvements in the lives of the people. ‎The condition of Sindh, particularly in many rural areas, reflects these concerns. Damaged roads, overflowing garbage, poor sanitation, and inadequate public services make everyday life difficult. Similar concerns are voiced by people in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and other regions, where many continue to demand better facilities, development, and equal opportunities. ‎Farmers work tirelessly under the scorching sun to feed the nation. Employees spend long hours in offices to support their families. Students invest years in education, yet many remain unemployed even highly qualified graduates and researchers struggle to find suitable jobs. Meanwhile, poverty, heat-related illnesses, and malnutrition continue to claim innocent lives. ‎In a democratic society, peaceful protest is a constitutional right. When citizens raise their voices for justice, development, or equal treatment, they deserve to be heard with dialogue rather than confrontation. The unrest in Azad Jammu and Kashmir reminds us that citizens’ grievances whether related to economic hardships, political representation, or governance must be addressed through dialogue, accountability, and peaceful solutions rather than allowing frustration to turn into violence. Listening to the concerns of the people strengthens democracy and builds trust between the government and its citizens. ‎Despite these challenges, Pakistan remains our home, and we are proud to be Pakistanis. Criticizing shortcomings does not mean we love our country any less. On the contrary, it reflects our hope for a better future. We dream of a Pakistan where every citizen enjoys equal rights, where public resources are used responsibly, where justice prevails, and where no one is left behind because of their province, ethnicity, or economic status. ‎Pakistan has immense potential. What it needs is sincere leadership, transparent governance, and policies that place the welfare of the people above all else. Only then will every citizen be able to say with confidence and pride: Yes, we are Pakistanis, and we are truly united.

By Ali Hiader A certain segment in Pakistan has been gaining momentum in arguing that had dictator General Pervez Musharraf—like Imran Khan—said “Absolutely Not” to Washington, Pakistan might have been spared the scourge of terrorism and the subsequent economic hardships. However, such an argument attempts to view the decision made in 2001 through the lens of circumstances that emerged years later. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, shook the United States and sent shockwaves through the global order; approximately 3,000 people lost their lives, and institutions regarded globally as symbols of American economic and military might were targeted. These attacks challenged the security of the world’s sole superpower and generated intense public pressure on the President George W. Bush’s administration to take retaliatory action. For the United States, inaction had become politically almost impossible. Responsibility for these attacks was attributed to Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden—a Saudi national who was living in Afghanistan under Taliban protection. Initially, Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks, but his later statements increasingly portrayed as a retaliatory response to American policies. Regardless of how these statements were interpreted politically, by the end of 2001, it was clear to Washington that Al-Qaeda was the primary enemy and that Afghanistan was the hub of its operations. This context holds particular significance for Pakistan because the Taliban government was harboring Osama bin Laden. Pakistan was not merely a distant spectator to this crisis; it shared a long border with Afghanistan and had spent two decades during the Cold War establishing an extensive political and intelligence network there. Consequently, the United States had no better option than Pakistan. Therefore, the fundamental question is: Did Pakistan truly have the option to simply say “absolutely not,” instead of joining the American war? Pakistan was already grappling with severe economic and diplomatic vulnerabilities during the post-9/11 crisis, as the United States and other Western nations had imposed harsh economic sanctions following the 1998 nuclear tests. These sanctions slowed the pace of development, hampered foreign investment, and strained relations with global financial institutions, leaving the country already burdened by heavy debt. The situation became further complicated when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in October 1999, overthrowing an elected government. The military coup added fuel to the fire, further damaging Pakistan’s global reputation and leaving the country diplomatically weakened at a time when it needed international support the most. Following the September 11 attacks, Washington made its expectations absolutely clear. According to Musharraf’s own account, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage delivered a stern message to Pakistan: it had to stand either with the United States or against it. Another remark widely attributed to the US position was that if Pakistan refused to cooperate, it could be sent “back to the Stone Age.” Although the exact wording of that phrase was never officially substantiated, the intensity of US pressure was undeniable. Did the United States have the capability to inflict devastating damage on Pakistan, despite Pakistan being a nuclear power? The answer to this is “yes.” Pakistan’s nuclear capability was primarily developed to deter India. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal provided Islamabad with a strategic deterrent against its key regional rival, but this did not mean Pakistan was immune to American economic, diplomatic, or technological pressure. Pakistan lacked the long-range military capabilities to directly strike the U.S. mainland—located 7,000 miles away—whereas the United States held an overwhelming advantage in air power, naval strength, intelligence, technology, financial resources, and global diplomatic influence. Therefore, nuclear weapons were not synonymous with strategic parity with the United States. Pakistan could deter certain types of aggression from India, but realistically, it lacked the capability to inflict the same level of damage upon the United States. Another major reason for Pakistan’s importance to the United States was the intelligence network present in Afghanistan. During the Cold War, Pakistan was one of the United States’ key regional partners in supporting the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation. Pakistani intelligence agencies established extensive networks among Afghan groups, while the United States and Saudi Arabia provided arms and financial support for the resistance. Pakistan served as a crucial conduit for channeling this aid to the Afghan resistance. This historical relationship gave the United States a unique strategic advantage after 9/11. Pakistan possessed a combination of geography, intelligence networks, logistical routes, and institutional experience—assets that would have been extremely difficult to replace. Its cooperation could significantly facilitate U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Consequently, Islamabad chose the path it deemed relatively less damaging. Pakistan provided assistance through logistical support, access to airspace and facilities, intelligence cooperation, and other means, but did not directly join the war; in return for this strategic support, US sanctions were eased, economic aid increased, and Pakistan regained special diplomatic significance in Washington. This does not mean that the decision was without negative consequences. Pakistan itself became a major target of terrorism, resulting in the deaths of nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnels and economic losses of approximately $150 billion; Pakistan paid a very heavy price for this war. Furthermore, the repercussions of the strategic policies adopted during the 1980s and 1990s later manifested as problems for Pakistan—issues that perhaps could not have been fully foreseen in 2001. However, there is an important distinction here: criticizing the consequences of a decision and claiming that a different realistic course of action existed at the time are two separate things. A major irony of the Afghan war is that U.S. officials and analysts have repeatedly cited Pakistan as one of the primary reason for the failure to achieve American objectives in Afghanistan. When the question arises as to why the world’s most powerful military failed to achieve its objectives in Afghanistan, the answer is sometimes given in a single word: Pakistan. This should not necessarily be viewed as a badge of honor; rather, it reflects a complex relationship in which Washington needed Pakistan yet lacked trust in it, while simultaneously accusing certain Pakistani elements of supporting forces that were undermining

By Saman Aftab Since the world has deliberated a lot to find a workable solution of plastic pollution, it is imperative to underscore the significance of most promising eco- friendly solutions to curb the plastic menace. The non-degradable nature of synthetic plastics is contaminating terrestrial and aquatic eco systems. Moreover, the disastrous effects of microplastics (extremely tiny plastic pieces) on human nervous system development, hormonal balance and reproductive system are becoming evident with scientific research. Hence, plastic pollution has become a grave concern not only for the environment but also for human health. It is a well-documented fact that the current strategies to deal with disposing of synthetic plastic are not sufficient to get rid of this man made pollution. Landfilling is littering the water bodies as the leachate escaping from the landfills causes the contamination of water. Similarly, incineration (burning of plastic waste) leads to air pollution in turn causing several health hazard in the surroundings. Even, recycling of plastic seems to be highly expensive when dealing with enormous amounts of mix plastic wastes in developing countries like Pakistan. However, as a bioremediative strategy, biodegradation holds promising prospects. Biodegradation of plastic simply means the use of microorganisms (including bacteria and fungi etc.) that have the capability of degrading petroleum based plastic in such a manner that would render the synthetic plastic degraded in the environment. Such microbial strains are present ubiquitously in those environments where plastics are dumped such as landfills. The researchers have not only isolated such strains but also managed to produce genetically modified bacteria/fungi capable of easily degrading synthetic plastics. Even the microbial enzymes of such microorganisms have been employed for such purposes as to study the intricacies of the biodegradation process only to make it more effective in the future. Pakistan is one of the countries where the use and misuse of plastic allows the environment to host such microbial strains capable of decomposing plastic in abundance. Having keen interest in this topic, I myself have isolated and identified several bacterial and fungal strains in my research work of MPhil titled “Biodegradation of plastics by locally isolated microorganisms”. Moreover, I have contributed a chapter on “Role of microbes in microplastic removal and its health effect on human health” in a book titled “Advanced treatment technologies for the removal of microplastics in wastewater”. Similarly, I have authored another chapter on “The role of microbial enzymes in the degradation of plastics- a sustainable tool for waste management” in an Elsevier book titled “Plastic waste valorization”. Hence, in my humble opinion, the optimization of biodegradation process can be exploited in an industrial setup where synthetic plastics would be degraded in the same manner as biological/microbiological systems are used to treat industrial wastewater. The scientists around the world are working day and night to come up with innovative strategies of plastic waste removal without deteriorating our environment. China, for example is working to convert mix plastic waste into hydrogen fuel but that is too expensive for the time being. In our country we hear about the banning of single use plastic specifically polyethylene shopping bags from our policy makers on and off. However, its enforcement never takes into effect. In fact, since hundreds and thousands of people are associated with the industry of plastic production, it is not wise to disrupt this supply chain abruptly without providing people with other feasible options. The introduction of biodegradable plastic as an alternative is overrated. The biodegradable plastic has shown to last much longer in the environment than what it promises and its production cost makes it too expensive to replace conventional plastic in the market. Whereas, Biodegradation of plastic still offers much hope to tackle plastic pollution. The dearth of resources and governmental assistance is the only hindrance, otherwise Pakistan has the potential to streamline an effective plastic waste management plan pivoted around biodegradation and become a global leader in this regard. I request the authorities to pay attention and incentivize researchers to explore this area of research for national good in particular and international benefit in general. Even if the unlikely consensus on plastic production cap is reached, still the world will need to streamline the process of plastic waste management. And, out of all plastic waste management techniques including incineration, landfilling and recycling, biodegradation is the most ecofriendly process of getting rid of hazardous plastics. The governments all across the globe must encourage their researchers to explore plastic degrading microorganism and optimize the process of biodegradation to get effective outcomes. The writer has done MPhil in Microbiology from GCU Lahore

These days, one phrase echoes throughout our country: “Pakistan’s system has collapsed.” If we translate the word collapse into plain, colloquial language, it means that our so-called system has completely broken down, gone to ruin, or become utterly dysfunctional. Therefore, the argument goes, the country now needs a new system. This, they claim, can only happen if, instead of the existing four provinces, Pakistan is reorganized into thirty or thirty-two new provinces. Such a restructuring, they believe, would push aside the traditional politicians and allow a new generation of political leaders to emerge. Otherwise, they warn, just as in India, there will be an uprising of the “cockroaches”—that is, the youth—which will force this collapsed, rotten system to surrender. At first glance, these words appear attractive and appealing. They express not only frustration and disgust with our current political situation but also offer hope to the younger generation, particularly Generation Z. It is as if they are saying: “Dear frustrated young people! We are opening the doors to your future. You will rise, dominate the scene, and sweep away all the debris of the past—that is, the traditional politicians—with the force of your determination and enthusiasm.” However, this humble writer sees, behind these beautiful words, not a bright future but the same worn-out and ugly mirage of the past. In reality, those who are truly responsible—the real culprits—cleverly distance themselves from blame, divert the attention of the youth toward others, and then present themselves as the young people’s sympathizers and supporters. In our poetry, it is through such tricks that the beloved murderer becomes an innocent beloved, and the criminal appears as the trusted confidant. But this humble writer calls it what it really is: “the thief making the loudest outcry.” Our national poet, Iqbal, once wrote: There is an outcry that Muslims have vanished from the world; We ask: Were true Muslims ever really present? In appearance you resemble Christians, in civilization the Hindus; These are the Muslims before whom even the Jews would feel ashamed. If, in today’s circumstances, you replace the word “Muslims” with “system,” the verses take on a striking new meaning: There is an outcry that the system has vanished from the country; We ask: Was there ever really a system to begin with? If we were to parody the remaining verses, they might be difficult for some to digest. Suffice it to say that those in power never truly allowed a genuine system to develop here. And whenever, after much struggle, some semblance of a system did emerge, there were always certain “respectable gentlemen” who seemed to have taken an invisible oath—or perhaps a vow of deliberate silence—that it must never be allowed to function. In the eyes of this humble writer, our system truly collapsed on 16 August 1946, when, under the guidance of the British establishment, the Direct Action Day was observed, reducing the foundations of any future system to rubble. From that point onward, the struggle was no longer for a functioning system but for personal rule. That struggle strangled democracy, human rights, liberty, and freedom, and instead built a grand highway of coercion and dictatorship. Anyone who dared to step off that path or disagree with it was labeled a traitor, an enemy of the nation, an Indian agent, or part of the so-called “Fitna-e-Hind” (the Indian conspiracy). These labels were then applied to whomever those in power wished. The first victim was Dr. Khan Sahib’s democratically elected provincial government in the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), which was dismissed within the very first week. Soon afterward, the same authoritarian mentality struck the government of Ayub Khuhro in Sindh. It was also decided that any cabinet member who failed to say “Yes, Sir” to the Governor-General would be considered dispensable. Once the founding generation established such principles of governance, why would later generations lag behind in following them? Thereafter, the race for personal power was inevitable. In the end, victory was bound to go to whoever possessed the greater force—whether the power of the stick or the gun. How could it be otherwise? If, instead of making the Constitution and the rule of law your source of authority, you rely on personal superiority, intimidation, prestige, and the power of office, then someone carrying a gun will inevitably dominate the throne of personal power. And once that happens, the cycle simply continues. It is a law of nature that the bigger fish eats the smaller fish. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Ghulam Muhammad, and Iskander Mirza all played their respective roles. Later, when greater power confronted lesser power, the result was the rise of powerful military rulers such as Ayub Khan, Agha Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and Qamar Javed Bajwa. (To be continued)

The Post-2027 Financial System in Pakistan strategy paper, released by the Ministry of Finance, is an important acknowledgement that the elimination of Riba [Quranic term for unjust gain and enrichment by exploitative use of capital without any real underlying economic activity] can no longer remain an open-ended constitutional promise. The paper correctly links the transition to the Federal Shariat Court judgment of April 28, 2022, and the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2024, which inserted a deadline into Article 38(f) for the complete elimination of Riba before January 1, 2028. The main weakness is that the paper converts a binding constitutional requirement into a gradual, conditional and partly voluntary programme. The strategy therefore supports the objective of eliminating Riba while simultaneously preserving routes through which interest-based finance could continue after the constitutional deadline. The Islamic legal standard is stricter than the strategy’s policy language. The Federal Shariat Court held in Shariat Petition No. 30-L of 1991 and connected matters that Riba is prohibited in all its forms and manifestations, while the International Islamic Fiqh Academy’s Resolution No. 10 (10/2) of 1985 treats any stipulated increase on a loan or overdue debt as prohibited Riba. The Qur’anic rule permits the creditor to recover the principal but not an agreed increase merely because time has passed, while Sahih Muslim 1598 condemns the receiver, payer, recorder and witnesses of an interest transaction. The legal test is therefore based on economic substance rather than terminology. The contract does not become Islamic merely because interest is renamed as profit or mark-up where the financier receives a predetermined debt increase without genuine ownership or risk. The strategy’s most serious contradiction concerns foreign-owned financial institutions. The paper expects most domestically owned institutions to convert, but it makes the transformation of majority foreign-owned banks voluntary and later suggests that such banks may continue offering both conventional and Islamic products. The exemption is inconsistent with Article 38(f) of the Constitution because the constitutional character of Riba cannot depend on the nationality of shareholders. The same interest-bearing loan cannot be prohibited when issued by a Pakistani-controlled bank and acceptable when issued by a foreign-controlled bank [Rethinking Pakistan’s economic model—III: Banking, debt & Illusion of Reform, Minute Mirror, May 3, 2026] The exemption would create a two-tier market in which domestic banks bear conversion costs while foreign institutions retain conventional products. The strategy should instead impose an activity-based rule under which no licensed institution, regardless of ownership, may originate a new interest-bearing contract in Pakistan after December 31, 2027.   The treatment of existing conventional debt creates a second constitutional problem. The strategy promises that obligations contracted before the deadline will continue according to their original terms and that conventional public debt will be replaced only when each instrument matures.  The approach may preserve interest payments for years after January 1, 2028, where sovereign bonds, multilateral loans or syndicated facilities have long residual maturities. The concern does not mean that Pakistan should repudiate contracts, because unilateral default could trigger litigation, acceleration, cross-default and loss of market access. The Government must distinguish unavoidable transitional obligations from liabilities that can be refinanced, converted or redeemed early. The policy should require a debt-by-debt register showing principal, interest, maturity, governing law, conversion options, creditor consent and final sunset dates rather than granting a blanket exception until maturity. The language governing new finance is also too weak. The strategy says that the Government will “explore all options” for Shariah-compliant domestic funding and will “strive” to obtain Islamic foreign financing where reasonable and commercially viable options are available. The constitutional obligation is not a best-efforts commitment conditioned on pricing convenience. The revised policy should prohibit new interest-bearing public borrowing after the cut-off and require every proposed Murabaha, Ijarah, Istisna, Salam, Musharakah, Mudarabah or Wakalah structure to receive documented legal, fiscal and Shariah approval. The legislative programme must also identify the precise amendments required to the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the Government Securities Act, 2006, the Securities Act, 2015, the Companies Act, 2017, the Deposit Protection Corporation Act, 2016, the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 and relevant tax, insolvency and provincial laws. The paper’s assertion that banking-law amendments are “minor” understates the scale of the required transformation. The monetary policy framework requires scrutiny because Shariah compliance cannot be achieved merely by relabeling conventional central bank instruments [Who will draft Riba Prohibition Law? Minute Mirror, April 7, 2026]. The strategy states that the State Bank will use Shariah compliant open market operations and standing facilities, yet SBP’s DMMD Circular No. 24 of 2021 provides that the expected return on its Mudarabah based standing facility equals the conventional overnight reverse repo ceiling rate. The use of a conventional benchmark does not automatically invalidate a genuine Mudarabah, but mechanical replication creates a material form over substance risk. The revised framework should require transparent profit pools, ex-post reconciliation of returns, genuine exposure to permissible assets and clear treatment of losses—Is Riba free banking possible?, Dawn, April 27, 2012. The framework should also explain how reserve requirements, lender-of-last-resort support, liquidity absorption, foreign-exchange operations and monetary transmission will function without continuing dependence on an interest-rate corridor. The proposed hybrid Ijarah-cum-Murabaha Sukuk and Assets Registry Company are practical responses to the shortage of sovereign assets, but they require stronger safeguards. The paper states that the hybrid structure could support Sukuk issuance approaching twice the value of underlying assets and that registered federal assets would remain in governmental use. The International Islamic Fiqh Academy requires Sukuk to establish true ownership, effective disposal rights and corresponding liability rather than fictitious or circular asset transfers. The registry should disclose title, valuation, encumbrance, beneficial ownership, usufruct and the exact risk transferred to investors. The treatment of retained earnings also requires a purification methodology separating lawful capital and trading income from identifiable interest-derived earnings. The paper’s statement that converting banks may keep retained earnings is incomplete unless independent Shariah audit, charitable disposal of prohibited income and transparent

The Pakistan Muslim League (N)’s power show in Muzaffarabad during the Azad Jammu and Kashmir election campaign was far more than an ordinary political rally. To me, it marked the re-emergence of Nawaz Sharif as the central figure in Pakistan’s political landscape. The message from Muzaffarabad was unmistakable. Nawaz Sharif spoke of development rather than division, construction rather than confrontation, and public welfare rather than political vendettas. His interaction with the crowd was genuine and heartfelt. One symbolic moment that captured public attention was his light-hearted remark expressing a desire to become the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It reflected his affection for the region and the deep emotional bond he has always maintained with the people of Kashmir, whose support has remained consistent throughout his political career. Having covered Pakistani politics for nearly three decades and followed Nawaz Sharif closely since his arrival in London from exile in 2006, I have witnessed every major phase of his political journey. From Duke Street in London, where he addressed party workers during years of political exile, to the massive public gathering in Muzaffarabad, I saw the same determination and resilience that has defined his politics for decades. Few political leaders in South Asia have experienced the highs and lows that Nawaz Sharif has endured. His elected government was overthrown by General Pervez Musharraf in 1999. He was prosecuted, imprisoned and later forced into exile. Years later, he returned to Pakistan and regained political power, only to face another period of legal and political challenges following the Panama Papers case. In my view, elements within the state establishment and parts of the judiciary played significant roles during different phases of these political confrontations. Regardless of differing opinions on those events, what remains remarkable is that every major attempt to end his political career has ultimately been followed by his return to the centre of national politics. Many analysts predicted that the 2024 general elections would mark the end of Nawaz Sharif’s political dominance. I never shared that assessment. Throughout my television appearances and reporting, I consistently argued that he remained the principal decision-maker within the PML-N and that no major political decision was taken without his approval. One of the defining strengths of the Sharif family’s politics has been continuity of leadership. Shehbaz Sharif has repeatedly demonstrated exceptional political loyalty to his elder brother. On several occasions, he chose party unity over personal ambition. Following the difficult electoral environment of 2024, he assumed the office of Prime Minister at a time when Pakistan was facing severe economic and diplomatic challenges. In my assessment, his government helped restore economic confidence, improved macroeconomic stability and steered Pakistan away from a potentially deeper financial crisis. His administrative style has always been focused on governance and delivery rather than political rhetoric. Maryam Nawaz’s rise represents another important chapter in the party’s evolution. During the years when Nawaz Sharif faced political disqualification and exile, she emerged as one of the PML-N’s most visible campaigners. She endured political pressure, remained active throughout the party’s most difficult period and gradually established herself as a national political leader in her own right. As Chief Minister of Punjab, Maryam Nawaz has sought to build her political identity around governance, administrative reforms and public service delivery. Whether one agrees with her politics or not, she has brought energy and visibility to the office and has made rapid implementation of development initiatives a defining feature of her administration. Her speeches continue to energise party workers, while her governance record is increasingly becoming central to the PML-N’s political narrative. When I met Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz at Jati Umra earlier this year, I observed the same resolve that I had seen nearly two decades earlier during the London exile years. The determination to continue serving through politics appeared unchanged. The Muzaffarabad rally reinforced what I have believed for years: Nawaz Sharif has entered another active phase of his political career. His message is no longer about political survival—it is about political continuity, stability and development. Whether one supports him or opposes him, it is difficult to deny one reality. More than forty years after entering politics, Nawaz Sharif remains one of Pakistan’s most enduring and influential political figures. His resilience has become part of Pakistan’s political history, and Muzaffarabad demonstrated that his political story is far from over. The views expressed in this article are solely my personal observations and political analysis based on decades of reporting on Pakistan’s politics.