Surplus on paper, burden on people

Thousands of people gathered on the streets of Washington this week. They came with Palestinian flags. They came with banners. They came with one clear demand. They want Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested the moment he sets foot in the United States. This demand is not extreme. It is based on law. The International Criminal Court has already issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu. Judges at the court found reasonable grounds to believe he bears responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Countries that respect international law are expected to act on such warrants. The United States chose not to. President Donald Trump made his position clear before Netanyahu even landed. He said Netanyahu would not be arrested on American soil. He defended Israel’s actions in the region without hesitation. This sends a troubling message. It tells the world that some leaders are above the law, as long as they have powerful friends. The protesters deserve credit. They did not stay silent. They stood outside in the summer heat and said what many people around the world are thinking. Gaza has suffered enormous destruction. Tens of thousands of civilians have died. Homes, hospitals and schools have been reduced to rubble. Ordinary people watching this unfold have every right to demand accountability from the man who led that campaign. It is worth noting that New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has taken a braver stance than the federal government. He has said his city will look into enforcing the ICC warrant if Netanyahu travels there in September for the United Nations General Assembly. This is what leadership looks like. It is a reminder that not every American official is willing to look away. Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump this week was billed as a discussion of regional strategy after their joint military action against Iran. But the real story outside the White House gates was the crowd demanding justice. Their voices should not be dismissed as noise. They represent a growing global frustration with double standards in how international law is applied. The world should stands with those who believe no leader, however powerful his allies, should be shielded from accountability. The protesters in Washington were not the problem this week. The problem was the decision to protect a man wanted by the world’s highest court.

The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye marks a serious step forward for regional security. The pact, signed on August 7, brings together three important Muslim majority countries under one collective defence framework. An attack on one member will now be treated as an attack on all three, a principle similar to what NATO countries follow among themselves. This is a significant moment for Pakistan’s foreign and defence policy. This newspaper understands that not every detail of a defence agreement can or should be made public. Military planning, operational details, and certain sensitive mechanisms between armed forces must remain confidential. No serious defence pact anywhere in the world publishes its full operational playbook, and Pakistan should not be expected to do so either. Some secrecy is necessary and reasonable when national security is involved. That said, this does not mean the public should be kept in the dark about everything. Broad information, such as who the pact covers, what kind of coordination it involves, and what its larger goals are, should be shared openly with citizens. Pakistanis have a right to understand the basic shape of agreements that affect the country’s security and foreign relations, even if the fine print stays classified. It is encouraging that information about this agreement is now steadily emerging. Türkiye’s Defence Ministry has spoken publicly about the new coordination mechanisms, joint military exercises, and plans for closer defence industry cooperation. Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, has also come forward to clarify the scope of the agreement. This kind of openness, even in limited form, is a good omen. It shows that the state is willing to explain its major decisions to the public rather than leaving citizens to guess or rely on rumours.

The Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court has voted to remove prosecutor Karim Khan. The vote came over sexual misconduct allegations. His legal team has confirmed the move and called it political. The vote happened on Friday. It came at a time when the ICC faces heavy pressure from the United States and Israel. This pressure grew after Khan issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant in 2024. This timing raises serious questions. Tayab Ali, head of Khan’s legal team, said a judicial panel had unanimously found no misconduct or breach of duty by Khan. Yet member states still voted him out. This decision does not follow the evidence. It does not follow the only judicial finding in the matter. That is unacceptable. Khan was removed by an executive vote while under US sanctions and while the court itself sat under enormous political pressure. He was never given a fair chance to be heard. A process built this way cannot claim to deliver justice. It looks like punishment for doing his job. Minute Mirror stands with Karim Khan on this point. An organisation meant to protect international law must not bend to pressure from powerful states. The ICC was built to hold leaders accountable, including leaders backed by strong allies. If prosecutors can be removed the moment they issue warrants against a protected ally, the court loses its purpose entirely. The ICC has failed Karim Khan. It failed to protect its own official from a process that ignored its own judges. It failed to explain why political timing lined up so closely with the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants. Removing him does not erase those warrants, since only ICC judges can withdraw them. But it damages trust in the court at the exact moment the world needed that trust most. Justice must never depend on who a defendant knows in Washington or Tel Aviv.

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.

The country is having an important conversation again. Should the country create new provinces to fix its governance problems? Or should it strengthen local governments and give real power to mayors instead? Federal Minister Mohsin Naqvi recently argued that the current system of governance has become outdated. He warned that without real reform, Pakistan will still face the same problems ten years from now. He is right that something needs to change. Large provinces, especially Punjab, are simply too big to manage efficiently from one provincial capital. But former State Bank Governor Dr Ishrat Hussain offers an important word of caution. He points out that creating new provinces means building an entirely new layer of bureaucracy. Each new province needs its own secretariat, its own cabinet, its own departments, its own buildings and vehicles. All of this adds permanent, recurring costs to a country that is already struggling with debt and financial pressure. Creating a new province does not solve a problem. It often creates an expensive new one. Dr Ishrat Hussain’s proposed solution deserves serious attention. He suggests that instead of drawing new provincial boundaries, Pakistan should strengthen mayoral systems and local governments in every major city. If cities like Lahore, Karachi and Faisalabad were given real financial and administrative powers, with elected mayors controlling budgets and development projects, this could fix governance problems without the heavy cost of new provincial structures. His argument makes sense. The real issue is not how many provinces Pakistan has. The real issue is that power has never properly reached the local level, where problems are actually felt and solved. This is a reasonable middle path. Strengthening city governments should be the first priority. Giving elected mayors genuine control over budgets, infrastructure and daily administration would bring government closer to the people it serves, without adding new layers of expensive bureaucracy. That said, there may still be a limited case for new provinces where genuine historical, linguistic and administrative grounds exist. Punjab is an unusually large province, and two regions within it, the Seraiki belt in the south and the Potohar region in the north, have long-standing and distinct identities, dialects and development needs that differ from central Punjab. If any new provinces are ever created, these two are the most defensible candidates, since they rest on real cultural and administrative logic rather than short-term political convenience. But this should remain the exception, not the rule.

Lahore’s old city is finally getting the attention it deserves. Nawaz Sharif, the three time former prime minister, has now been made chairman of the newly formed board of the Lahore Heritage Area Revival project. He has also been named patron in chief of the Punjab Walled Cities and Heritage Areas Authority. This is a welcome change, and it deserves praise. Earlier, Nawaz Sharif only held the title of chief patron. He could give advice, but he had no real power to act. Now, under a new notification issued by the Punjab government, a proper board has been formed. This board has full executive and administrative powers. This means decisions can be made faster, without getting stuck in bureaucratic delays. This move shows something important. A senior political leader is choosing to give his time and attention to restoring the heritage of his own city. Lahore’s old streets, its Mughal era buildings, its Sikh period structures, and its colonial landmarks carry the memory of centuries. For too long, many of these sites were left to decay. Now, with pedestrian zones planned from New Anarkali to Paan Gali, and from Kacheri Chowk to Neela Gumbad, the old city may finally get the dignity it deserves. Nawaz Sharif has a track record of completing large projects on time. Motorways, roads, and infrastructure schemes from his earlier terms are still remembered today. If he brings that same energy to Lahore’s heritage revival, the city stands to gain a great deal. This is not just about buildings. It is about restoring identity, culture, and pride for the people who live there. This is why other politicians across Pakistan should take note. Every city in this country has its own history, its own old markets, its own forgotten buildings. Karachi, Multan, Peshawar, and Quetta all carry stories that deserve to be preserved. Political leaders in these cities should step forward the way Nawaz Sharif has done for Lahore. Owning a city means more than winning votes there. It means protecting its identity for future generations. At the same time, the federal government must think bigger. If provinces and cities can be revived one by one, the whole country can be revived together. Pakistan does not just need leaders who own their cities. It needs a government that owns the entire nation, its heritage, its people, and its future.