A chorus of confused responses followed the Quetta carnage on August 8, that left over 70 dead and dozens maimed. The top civil and military leadership called it an attempt by the “enemies of the country” to sabotage the ongoing China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. The CPEC began only in 2015 but Pakistan has been reeling from terrorism of this scale since July 2007. Several parliamentarians and analysts declared the attack a result of “non-effective” implementation of the National Acton Plan (NAP). Syed Naveed Qamar, the parliamentary leader of the PPP, demanded that parliament be explained why incidents of such magnitude continue to occur after all parties had given a mandate to the federal government under the NAP to go after terrorists. The question is: can NAP really prevent such well-planned attacks? There is also the view that Quetta witnessed a bloodbath because terrorists had been defeated in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and they were shifting their focus to Balochistan now. Explaining this attack as a consequence of Operation Zarb-e-Azb? What about the enmass killings of minorities and other Balochistan citizens between 2009 and 2013? Who was involved in those atrocities then? As usual, Maulana Sheerani of the JUI-F, reiterated the religious right’s narrative that the security establishment brought this bloodbath to the country by joining the US-led anti-terror war. The arms received from America under the Coalition Support Fund were being used “to fight our own people and that’s why we have to face such incidents,” insinuated the Maulana. But excuse me! Are the masterminds of the TTP/Jamaatul Ahrar or members of other terrorist outfits “our own people”? For people like Maulana Sheerani, the narrative refuses to change. Ghulam Ahmad Bilour of the Awami National Party offered some wisdom, though still mixed with a possibly inaccurate diagnosis — the country is facing such problems because decision-making authority has been taken from politicians, he...

A chorus of confused responses followed the Quetta carnage on August 8, that left over 70 dead and dozens maimed. The top civil and military leadership called it an attempt by the “enemies of the country” to sabotage the ongoing China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. The CPEC began only in 2015 but Pakistan has been reeling from terrorism of this scale since July 2007. Several parliamentarians and analysts declared the attack a result of “non-effective” implementation of the National Acton Plan (NAP). Syed Naveed Qamar, the parliamentary leader of the PPP, demanded that parliament be explained why incidents of such magnitude continue to occur after all parties had given a mandate to the federal government under the NAP to go after terrorists. The question is: can NAP really prevent such well-planned attacks? There is also the view that Quetta witnessed a bloodbath because terrorists had been defeated in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and they were shifting their focus to Balochistan now. Explaining this attack as a consequence of Operation Zarb-e-Azb? What about the enmass killings of minorities and other Balochistan citizens between 2009 and 2013? Who was involved in those atrocities then? As usual, Maulana Sheerani of the JUI-F, reiterated the religious right’s narrative that the security establishment brought this bloodbath to the country by joining the US-led anti-terror war. The arms received from America under the Coalition Support Fund were being used “to fight our own people and that’s why we have to face such incidents,” insinuated the Maulana. But excuse me! Are the masterminds of the TTP/Jamaatul Ahrar or members of other terrorist outfits “our own people”? For people like Maulana Sheerani, the narrative refuses to change. Ghulam Ahmad Bilour of the Awami National Party offered some wisdom, though still mixed with a possibly inaccurate diagnosis — the country is facing such problems because decision-making authority has been taken from politicians, he...

Context Gender-based violence (GBV) and violence against women are terms commonly used in Pakistan by the media. They denote intellectual poverty, or worse so, intentional ignorance of the basic human rights and status awarded to women by the Women’s Protection Bill (2006) and the long awaited Protection of Women Against Violence Bill (2015). Though the law claims to ensure women’s security, actual enforcement and execution remains a huge challenge in a conservative society, pockets of which is still governed by a tribal mindset. Legislation challenging the patriarchal/religiously motivated values of Pakistan has met stiff resistance from a very vocal right wing and conservative members of the parliament. This article, alongside identifying acts of violence against women, clarifies the distinction between the terms GBV and violence against women. GBV is derived from unequal power distribution and the resultant power struggle between men and women, in which the female usually yields first or, generally speaking, is forced to do so. State of GBV in Pakistan Analysis of the 2011 data was quite alarming. Out of the 2,718 cases of GBV, 687 women were abducted, 22 were victims of acid attacks, 14 were burnt alive, 9 were tortured by wild dogs, 8 were subjected to karo kari (honor killing) in addition to another 124 victims of honor killing. 82 were murdered over love marriages, 259 were murdered over domestic disputes, 13 succumbed to police violence and torture, 2 were victims of panchayat verdicts, 286 females’ dignity was forcibly violated, 8 were sexually harassed by police, 589 women committed suicide over family disputes, 538 were victims of domestic violence, 12 women were married off as vani while 6 were victims of the exchange of brides custom (watta satta). Bear in mind, that these are reported incidents. Another 3,100 cases were reported in 2012. This count of GBV increased threefold in 2014 as a total of 13,183 women were oppressed in Punjab, out of which...

After more than a decade of unchallenged deployment of Predator drones to kill suspected enemies, US President Barack Obama recently signed off an executive order to address civilian casualties in US operations involving the use of force. “The [policy] is based on our national interests, our values and our legal obligations,” says the executive order issued on July 1. “This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person”, it says however. Through the order, Obama has tried to provide a legal cover and justification for drone strikes, which have largely been considered illegal by international human rights activists. The US administration has also tried to address the issue of civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes meant for targeting terrorists. There has been widespread criticism of the killing of innocent civilians in such strikes, and the policy suffers from several inherent flaws and legal implications. Firstly, these attacks constitute blatant violation of the sovereignty of other countries. Secondly, the acts also violate the international humanitarian law. Thirdly, you cannot hold the operators of drones responsible for innocent victims. At least 256 identified civilians have been killed in strikes in Pakistan In many cases, nobody really knows whether those killed were terrorists or innocent non-combatants. That is why a number of countries including China, Russia, the UN, and human rights organizations have demanded of the US to make public the details of its covert operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Somalia. Fourthly, the executive order only mentions the inherent right of self-defense, with no care for international rule of law, human rights, social and political consequences and sovereignty of other countries. Fifthly,...

After more than a decade of unchallenged deployment of Predator drones to kill suspected enemies, US President Barack Obama recently signed off an executive order to address civilian casualties in US operations involving the use of force. “The [policy] is based on our national interests, our values and our legal obligations,” says the executive order issued on July 1. “This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person”, it says however. Through the order, Obama has tried to provide a legal cover and justification for drone strikes, which have largely been considered illegal by international human rights activists. The US administration has also tried to address the issue of civilian casualties caused by the drone strikes meant for targeting terrorists. There has been widespread criticism of the killing of innocent civilians in such strikes, and the policy suffers from several inherent flaws and legal implications. Firstly, these attacks constitute blatant violation of the sovereignty of other countries. Secondly, the acts also violate the international humanitarian law. Thirdly, you cannot hold the operators of drones responsible for innocent victims. At least 256 identified civilians have been killed in strikes in Pakistan In many cases, nobody really knows whether those killed were terrorists or innocent non-combatants. That is why a number of countries including China, Russia, the UN, and human rights organizations have demanded of the US to make public the details of its covert operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Somalia. Fourthly, the executive order only mentions the inherent right of self-defense, with no care for international rule of law, human rights, social and political consequences and sovereignty of other countries. Fifthly,...