by Imtiaz Gul With the death of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, the Taliban leader, in a drone strike, Pakistan once again finds itself under international scrutiny. The nature of the attack and the unscathed passport of “Wali Mohammad” beg a thorough investigation. The incident has on the one hand dealt a severe blow to whatever has been going on in the name of peace efforts under the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG). On the other, it draws Pakistan into yet another round of global debate on the issue of support to the Afghan Taliban and their presence here. At the same time, it exposes the country to new threats, such as direct drone strikes and latest regional realignments such as the Iranian-Indian-Afghan transit agreement on the Chabahar port. India plans to invest up to $500 million in a deal to develop Chabahar into a strategic port in Iran, precisely the way China is investing in the Gwadar port for connectivity to its western Xinjiang region. These developments contain several lessons for Pakistan because they indicate an ever-increasing encirclement of the country for multiple reasons. Firstly, it appears clear that the US will deploy drones wherever it finds elements detrimental to its interests — regardless of the location. And President Obama made it quite clear during his press stakeout in Vietnam onMay 23 that “Our job is to help Afghanistan secure its own country, not to have our men and women in uniform engage in that fight for them. On the other hand, where we have a high-profile leader who has been consistently part of operations and plans to potentially harm US personnel and who has been resistant to the kinds of peace talks and reconciliation … then it is my responsibility as commander-in-chief not to stand by, but to make sure that we send a clear signal to the Taliban and others that we’re going to protect our people.” Secondly, the Afghan Taliban are being treated as an extension of al Qaeda as well as a criminal syndicate. By implication, any...

by Zeeshan Salahuddin Panama Papers dominated the airwaves this week. It seems that nearly no other piece of news has been discussed, dissected and discoursed. It has become a part of our national vocabulary, an interminable point of friction between the government and the opposition, and an undeniably impactful event in Pakistan’s history. However, the tenacity of the Panama Papers cannot and should not overshadow the prime minister’s National Action Plan (NAP) against terrorism. It is an omnipresent idea, a consistent, unwavering, unflinching response to the wave of terror and militancy facing the country. The agenda items on the National Action Plan (NAP) are neither new nor novel. Multiple versions of these ideas had existed for quite some time but NAP, for the first time, consolidated them all into a comprehensive document. The main difference this time is the strong across the board political will that drove this change, undoubtedly fueled and reinforced by a strong military push. However, should this political will fail, falter or fade, as it seems to be in the wake of the Panama Papers, Pakistan can slip back into the stark violence of the past fifteen years. Second, there seemed to be a concerted effort by the government to bring all parties on-board, and especially to appease the religious hardliners with political muscle. While these are good measures for building confidence and presenting a united front in the face of an unrelenting enemy, the counterterrorism narrative necessitates relentless focus and complete state ownership. The ruling party PML-N, for better or for worse, is the executive branch, with all the powers and privileges that come with that territory, and it needs to take commend of the counterterror campaign and the development of the alternate narrative rooted in the constitution of Pakistan. Pakistan can slip back into stark violence The military is a stable, well-oiled institution with a long-standing history of friction with...

by Imtiaz Gul As the hapless nation agonises over the worst squabbles among the ruling elite over the Panama Papers, it also wonders which institution to look up to for relief from issues arising out of bad governance or deficient rule of law. In these extremely stressful times, the judiciary remains a beacon of hope for most Pakistanis. They hope some actionable vibes will emanate out of it. However, some recent statements of the honourable judges of the highest court of the land bring doubt to the notion that the judiciary of the country will be able to bring the required relief. Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali recently told a conference on judicial education that “only a few learned judges in the entire country have full a command over the English language”. The chief justice also advised judges to learn the international language and urged that special courses of English language be introduced for training judges to help them understand issues better. On another occasion in March, the chief justice had lamented the low conviction rate and called for greater introspection and collective efforts within the justice sector to turn things around. Similarly, Justice Amir Hani Muslim had remarked on March 24 that 17 judges of the Supreme Court could not be expected to streamline or make the system of the country right. The list of such statements — which do identify critically important issues — is endless but they do beg a question. The point is simple: low conviction rate, delays and miscarriages of justice, and massive pendency is not because judges don’t have command over English. This state is also not entirely a result of the leaking governance structures. Neither do these problems stem from a flawed democratic system. They result from the exploitation of the criminal justice system. And this exploitation — that starts at the police station — happens under the nose of the judiciary. Collusion between lawyers and the lower judiciary traps countless people —...