by I.A. Rehman  PAKISTANI visitors to India, usually beset with anxiety about their country’s future, are sometimes relieved to find a good number of Indians similarly worried about their country. This is perhaps due to the fact that the twin states face many identical issues, and their people thus try to find solutions in the subcontinent’s shared culture. For instance, last week in Delhi the discussion at gatherings of left-inclined intellectuals and social activists was dominated by queries as to what will happen to India if the saffron brigade continued to bring all matters under the stamp of Hindutva. Sparks of resistance were not denied — such as the resistance by writers and artists (in renouncing state awards) or the defiance of the Jawaharlal Nehru University student leaders. But generally, the conclusion was that these actions, highly morale-boosting though they were, did not generate the kind of movement for the rejection of humbug that was needed. One also noticed a receding enthusiasm among optimists. Perhaps most people were more disappointed with the showing of the liberals (who should not be relied upon in any case) than was objectively necessary. But in the end, somebody or the other would cut the discussion short by claiming that India would never go down in the duel with fundamentalism because the traditions of tolerance in its society were so deep-rooted and strong. One could not help drawing parallels with similar gatherings in Pakistan where those lamenting the uncertainty of civil society (along with the state authorities) see no silver lining on the horizon. Does this mean that India and Pakistan both are condemned to suffer for a long time at the hands of people who are equipped with mantras that cannot be spurned without inviting the charge of sacrilege? That said, it is impossible not to find the judiciary challenging the executive or the legislature for transgressing its authority. Last time, it was a former Supreme Court judge taking...

by Imtiaz Gul Spread over 74,000 square kilometres, the northwestern province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) has endured conflict, disorder and deterioration like no other Pakistani province ever since the former Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan in December 1979. The presence of Afghan mujahideens’ command and control centres in cities such as Peshawar, Kohat and D I Khan (having close proximity to Fata and Pata), unquestioned US-Saudi-led  international support for their guerrilla warfare as well as the influx of millions of Afghan refugees brought unusual socioeconomic strain on K-P, which equally affected the province’s ecology. Pakistan’s partnership with the US-led global coalition against terrorism in Afghanistan following the  9/11 terrorist attacks only added to the debilitating consequences that the province has been reeling from — gun and drug-running, organised crime, religiously motivated insurgency/terrorism, and the nexus between crime and terrorism. These are some of the consequences that two international interventions in Afghanistan have entailed, not only for K-P but also for the rest of Pakistan. They have not only adversely affected the psyche of the locals but also severely degraded governance and service delivery — manifest in most government departments. A senior government official in K-P, who is on deputation from another province, rightly observed that the province’s bureaucracy probably represents the biggest hurdle in the way of reform and development. Most officers possess an obstructionist and cynical mindset which is stalling movement forward, he says. This context made governance difficult, not only for the previous ANP government, but remains a challenge for the present PTI government too. The PTI has introduced multiple legislation through a Reforms Implementation Cell, established a district health coordination board to monitor the performance of health institutions, and instituted the Medical Teaching Institution...

by Zeeshan Salahuddin Despite a range of concerns, primarily dealing with governance structures and security, the Chinese are committed to their long-term strategic vision. There are several reasons for this. First – and the Chinese are always quick to point this out – both countries have treaties and strategic partnerships with many states, but none have been elevated to the level of the all-weather strategic cooperation partnership. This ascension in status was agreed upon during President Xi Jinping’s visit in April 2015. Second, China has specifically chosen Pakistan to be the recipient of the inaugural project in the One Belt, One Road comprehensive initiative, because there is decades of trust and cooperation between the two countries. The two nations share mutual trust, mutual respect, mutual understanding, mutual support and mutual interests. The Chinese, undoubtedly, are here to stay, and they have thousands of years of civilization that has helped build cultural resilience and personal perseverance. The Chinese commitment to CPEC and to Pakistan is perhaps best summed up by the words of Zhou Gang, the former Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan and India and a veteran career diplomat often recognized as the architect of Pak-China relations: “We will never abandon our Pakistani brothers. Our cooperation on the seaport in Gwadar, in energy self-sufficiency, transport and infrastructure is a testament of our vision to see Pakistan grow, prosper and stand tall.” However, this is not to say that Chinese concerns end with security-related matters. Tang Mengsheng, Director of the Pakistan Studies Department at Peking University, in a side conversation in December, said that he hoped Pakistan could prioritize national interests and stability over local interests. He is also very cognizant of the fact that CPEC is a very expensive project, and that it is technologically challenging. It remains susceptible when Pakistan’s weak governance structures threaten to derail...

by Imtiaz Gul In April 2016, extremists won — twice — in the federal capital; first, all the hooligans — supporters of a person whose execution was endorsed by the highest court — went away scot free. They breached agreements, violated law, disregarded government warnings, knocked off barriers and stayed put at D-Chowk to hand the government demands largely inconsistent with the law and the constitution of the country. The federal administration — personified by the interior minister — congratulated itself for ending the sit-in without spilling a drop of blood. All the protestors, on the other hand, walked away with a sense of triumph, a sense of having first trampled the law, taken the capital and phone services hostage and then subdued the government into letting them go — unhurt, without legal consequences. Then, a week later, even more worrying was the response of the local administration of an institution that prides itself  as a high seat of learning for science and technology. It blocked a rights/responsibilities training programme, and used the distorted, incendiary feedback by two out of 21 trainees — mere 10 per cent  to ask organisers out of the campus. Some of the heads of departments — all PhDs and scientists — used a fraction of the content — lectures and discussions — of an earlier training to argue against such endeavour. These scientists literally spoke in support of the feedback by two trainees who had practically resonated demands by the wily Qadri marchers at D-Chowk. Some even took offence as to why 20 fundamental rights of the constitution had been picked up for discussion. For them, any discussion on Equal Citizenry, or Blasphemy Law, or Respect for All faiths amounts to foreign represented a foreign agenda — as if we don’t want to treat our non-Muslim citizens as equals! The training programme, aimed at promoting constitutional literacy, was the result of a partnership between the science and technology institution and a private think tank....