by Zeeshan Salahuddin This past Wednesday, I sat in the company of well-educated, well-meaning and ostensibly enlightened people at a gathering in Islamabad. Puns were spun, jokes cracked, people lambasted for one thing or another. It was supposed to be a light, carefree evening. Then a friend commented on how she was not happy with the services of her maid. “TheseChuhras are so lazy,” she said. The statement was said in such a nonchalant, flippant way, that it shocked several of us. As the conversation went on, it was revealed that she did not know the term was derogatory, and that she didn’t see a problem with it. Pundits and activists bemoan the state of minority rights and the institutionalization of the marginalization of minorities in Pakistan, but in our own homes, backyards and gatherings, we are surrounded by people who, despite their fancy Ivy League degrees, are fundamentally ignorant of why the term Chuhra is derogatory, insensitive, and offensive. Obviously this is anecdotal, and I don’t have access to any data that suggests that even the best educated among us are not aware of the historical and constitutionalized prejudice faced by monitories in Pakistan. But this does not change the fact that even those that have the power to change attitudes, shape beliefs, and alter history are not armed with the knowledge necessary for a person in their position. She did not know the term was derogatory While Muslims around the world are excelling in their careers in predominantly non-Muslim societies because of equal opportunity and respect for diversity, in our own land of the pure, we have institutionalized the marginalization of minorities. For instance, our Constitution promises everyone equal citizenry under Article 25, which says, “All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.” However, the same constitution also prevents any non-Muslims from holding the office of the President (Article 41(2)) or Prime Minister (Article...

Pakistan A US drone strike killed the leader of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, as he travelled under an alias through Pakistan from Iran. His civilian taxi driver also died. This was the first drone strike in Pakistan to be conducted by the US military not the CIA. It was the first US strike in Balochistan, an area in the west of the country. It was just the second drone strike in Pakistan to be publicly discussed by the US president. It was the third drone strike this year, the first since February. Afghanistan With the opium poppy harvest over, the Afghan Taliban stepped up its operations in the south and north of the country. The US continued its counter-terrorism strikes against al Qaeda and the Afghan off-shoot of Islamic State. It also continued force protection strikes, defending international and Afghan troops from attack by the Taliban. The most significant of these self-defence attacks hit in Pakistan. The US killed the leader of the Taliban because of the threat he posed to US and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. The Bureau is collecting data on individual strikes in Afghanistan, summarised above. However not all strikes are reported in open source material. The US Air Force publishes an aggregate summary of strikes in Afghanistan without any casualty information, which we have reproduced below. The figures for May will be released in June. Yemen There were no reported US strikes in Yemen last month. Somalia A US strike on May 12 killed five al Shabaab fighters, the Pentagon said. The attack targeted al Shabaab fighters who had pinned down a squad of Ugandan peacekeepers. Kenyan and Somali forces attacked an al Shabaab checkpoint two days previously in the same region of Somalia. US forces were there "in an advise and assist role" but "did not participate in any kinetic operations," a spokesperson told the Bureau. Published on :...

by Imtiaz Gul A brief encounter with a couple of schoolchildren in southern Punjab recently left me baffled. They study at one of the Cambridge-inspired upscale chains of schools. I had asked them about Pakistan-US-India relations and the response was as follows: the US is after Pakistan; it wants to do bad things to us; India wants to break up Pakistan. Why does it want to do so, I confronted them. They grappled with the question for a few moments and then went quiet because nobody had tutored them on ‘why others conspire against Pakistan’. Growing curious, I probed them a little on the sources of their views and found out that not only teachers at the school but also their drivers and guards were instrumental in shaping their narrative. Clearly, the emotional, irrational clatter on 24/7 television, too, considerably coloured their views. It was not the first time I heard a partially skewed version on what other countries do or may want to do to Pakistan. In interactions even with senior students and often with college and university teachers, I have come across similar thoughts streams. And this entails a primary question as to what breeds and feeds such narratives: the establishment, the media or the curricula? And how do these feed into the socio-political instability that Pakistan is currently going through. Is the Islamic history and Pakistan Studies they are being taught the main culprits for nurturing unreasonable thinking. Or are the collective omnipresent incompetence and failures at the state level the primary drivers of this sense of instability and uncertainty? Or probably a combination of all these? Broadly, at the heart of Pakistan’s current predicament are two drivers: external and internal. Externally, there are the various manifestations of geo-politics and regional alignments, such as the Indo-Afghan-American strategic alliance that globally projects a particular negative image of Pakistan. Relations with India and Afghanistan, too, constitute...

by Syed Mudassir Ali Shah INDIA and Iran concluded a long-awaited port deal in Tehran on Wednesday, lending a big boost to efforts for promoting regional trade. The Chabahar port near the Iranian border with Balochistan reflects Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s keen interest in forging robust trade links with Central Asia, including landlocked Afghanistan. In 2003, the two sides had agreed to execute the project, bypassing Pakistan, but the venture made slow progress due to Western curbs on Iran over its controversial nuclear programme. The port’s expansion is expected to whittle down transport costs and cut freight time from India to Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. Chabahar provides India an easier land-sea route to Afghanistan, where it has fostered close security cooperation and economic interests over the years. New Delhi has already spent $100 million on building a 220-kilometre road in the Nimroz province of Afghanistan. The road will be extended to Chabahar. Chabahar provides India an easier land-sea route to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is expected to sign a tripartite transit trade agreement on using the port as an alternative route, which could jack up bilateral trade to $3 billion from $700-800 million. The project’s strategic nature is illustrated by its location along the coast from the Chinese-funded Gwadar port in Balochistan. Noting the prospect of sanctions on Iran being lifted or eased, India plans to fast-track the plan. Modi’s sense of urgency in concluding trade pacts with Iran and other Persian Gulf nations is apparently driven by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signing of $46bn energy and infrastructure development agreements with Pakistan last month. During his daylong visit to Tehran, India’s shipping minister inked with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Ahmad Akhoundi a memorandum of understanding on developing the port on the Gulf of Oman. Both sides overruled America’s call for India and other countries not to rush into doing business with...