Privatisation must move fast and stay transparent

The Supreme Court has given a landmark ruling on women’s rights. It has declared that a woman’s right to seek khula, or judicial divorce, is a constitutional right. The court said that violence against a woman for exercising this right is an attack on the Constitution itself. A three member bench dismissed the jail petition of convict Waseem Abbas and upheld his death sentence. Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar wrote the four page detailed judgment. The court said women are fully protected under Articles 9, 14 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee their security, dignity and equal rights. It said anyone who uses violence against a woman seeking khula will face the full force of the law, and called the killing of a woman for exercising her legal right an act of brutality and open defiance of the law. The court also ruled that a person involved in a cold blooded and planned murder does not deserve any concession. It clarified that the testimony of relatives cannot be automatically rejected in cases that happen inside a home. Forensic evidence, including a match between bullet casings and the weapon linked to the crime, gave conclusive proof against the accused. The court found no flaw in the lower courts’ decisions. According to the case record, Waseem Abbas shot and killed his former wife, Shehnaz Bibi, on October 11, 2020, about 48 hours after she obtained a khula decree from a family court. A trial court had sentenced him to death, and the Lahore High Court upheld that sentence. This judgment sends a strong message and gives justice in this one case. But the law alone cannot protect every woman in Shehnaz Bibi’s position. Many women never even reach the court, because they fear exactly this kind of violence at home. A verdict can punish a killer after the fact, but it cannot undo the loss of a life. To truly protect women, society itself needs to change how it views a woman’s right to leave a marriage. Courts can deliver justice, but only a shift in mindset, at home, in communities, and among families, can prevent the next Shehnaz Bibi.

The protests by Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) against rising petroleum prices, the petroleum levy and inflation should not simply be treated as a political activity. The government needs to understand that the public’s economic pain is real. Whenever petrol and diesel prices increase, their impact goes far beyond the fuel station. Transport becomes expensive, food prices rise and the cost of doing business increases. A daily-wage worker, a small shopkeeper, a farmer and a salaried person all feel the pressure. The government’s petroleum levy may provide additional revenue, but it also adds to the burden on ordinary citizens. At a time when many families are already struggling to manage household expenses, every increase in fuel prices creates another problem. The protests in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar show that this issue has become a serious public concern. The government should listen to these voices instead of dismissing them as opposition politics. This does not mean that the government can ignore its own financial difficulties. Pakistan needs revenue to run the state, pay for public services and meet its financial obligations. But revenue collection should not depend too heavily on indirect taxes that affect everyone equally, including poor and middle-class citizens. The government must find a better balance. It should review the petroleum levy, reduce unnecessary taxes and control non-development expenditure. At the same time, it should improve tax collection from sectors and individuals with greater ability to pay. Most importantly, the government must communicate honestly with the public. If higher fuel prices are unavoidable because of international oil prices or economic conditions, people deserve a clear explanation and a plan for relief. The JI protests should therefore be seen as a warning. The government may disagree with the party’s politics, but it cannot ignore the economic reality behind the protests. Pakistan’s economic recovery will have little meaning if ordinary people continue to struggle to afford transport, food and basic necessities. The government must act with sensitivity and provide practical relief before public frustration grows further.

Pakistan and China marked the 99th founding anniversary of China’s People’s Liberation Army at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir praised the Chinese military and called the friendship between the two nations a bond built on trust. Chinese Ambassador Jiang Zaidong thanked Pakistan for hosting the event and promised continued support under the All-Weather Strategic Cooperative Partnership. The words on both sides were warm, and the friendship is real. It has lasted through decades of change. But warmth alone does not build an economy. Pakistan needs more than ceremonies and speeches. It needs results. China has shown the world what discipline and planning can achieve. In a few decades, it moved millions of people out of poverty. It built factories, highways, ports and technology companies that now compete with the best in the world. Pakistan should study this record closely and ask what lessons apply at home. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor was meant to be a turning point. It has delivered roads and power plants, but progress on trade, industry and jobs has been slow. Pakistan’s leaders talk often about brotherhood with China. They talk far less about learning from China’s work ethic, its focus on exports, and its long-term planning. Friendship between nations should serve the people of both countries. For Pakistan, that means turning diplomatic goodwill into factories that run, exports that grow, and jobs that last. It means learning how China trains its workers, manages its cities, and plans decades ahead instead of just one budget cycle. Pakistan and China have a friendship worth celebrating. But the next chapter of this relationship must move beyond guards of honour and official statements. It must bring real economic change to ordinary Pakistanis.

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 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.

Dharmendra Pradhan is gone, and India’s students deserve credit for this outcome. The Cockroach Janta Party earned this win through patience and courage, not through empty slogans. For ten days, young people faced tear gas and batons. They kept coming back. This kind of discipline is rare among protest movements. Many governments wait out public anger, hoping crowds will tire and go home. The CJP did not tire. It stayed at Jantar Mantar until the government had no choice but to listen. The protest also stayed focused. It began with anger over the NEET examination and irregularities that damaged trust in the whole testing system. Instead of losing direction, the movement grew into a wider call for accountability, transparency, and jobs for young Indians. This growth showed maturity, not chaos. Two rounds of talks failed before Pradhan resigned. That failure could have broken the movement. It did not. Protesters held their ground, and a third round never became necessary. The minister chose to step down first. This shows that sustained peaceful pressure still works in a democracy, even when early negotiations collapse. Credit also belongs to CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, who kept the movement organised despite police pressure. His simple words to the crowd, delivered after the resignation, captured the moment better than any long speech could. Rahul Gandhi is right to demand more. An apology from the prime minister and action against those responsible for violence against students would complete this chapter properly. Compensation for affected candidates and withdrawal of cases against protesters must also follow, as promised. Still, this resignation is a genuine victory. Young Indians showed that organised, peaceful protest can force accountability at the highest level. The Cockroach Janta Party deserves full credit for proving that persistence changes outcomes.