Preventive blocking of cellphone services does not make us any safer. On the 9th and 10th of Moharram this year, the government decided to shut down cellphone and mobile internet services in 68 districts. This has become a standard operating procedure. It was the 24th time since the beginning of 2012 that cellphone services were suspended in the name of national security, although admittedly the frequency has reduced significantly. Shutting down network services is a contentious and controversial step. The given reason is that terror groups can use mobile phones and networks to detonate improvised explosive devices from a safe distance. This is not a novel phenomenon in Pakistan, or abroad. Cellphone services have been shut down in the Great Britain and the United States for security reasons in the past. In London, a mobile phone service interruption followed the 2005 bombings, while in the US, mobile services were shut down after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. In both cases however, the measure was to ensure that no additional explosives were set off while rescue and investigations were underway. Authorities in San Francisco shut down services in some public transport stations to mitigate the impact of protests in the area – a tactic also used to disrupt protests in the Indian-held Kashmir as recently as May 2015, as well as in Gujarat in the past. Most countries do not assume control of communication services during national emergencies. In Pakistan, however, cell phone services are discontinued as a preventative measure. What should be a last-ditch measure has become a kneejerk frontline mechanism This measure seems to create more problems than it solves. The security measures taken during Moharram were unable to prevent a suicide bombing in Jacobabad that killed 22 and injured dozens others. The bombing was carried out by a suicide attacker carrying an estimated 10 kilograms of explosives. The target was a Shia procession, once again underlining the...

On October 26, 2015, Pakistan and other countries in South Asia were hit by one of the strongest recorded earthquakes. The northwestern province of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa reportedly suffered the most with over 200 deaths recorded within 48 hours of the tremors. The quake left large parts, mostly in mountainous and hilly regions, a trail of destruction of property and damages to infrastructure. This is not the first time an earthquake has affected Pakistan. In September 2013, an earthquake in the province of Balochistan resulted in 386 deaths and affected over 27,000 families. Furthermore, most Pakistanis of my generation clearly remember the tragic 2005 7.8 magnitude Kashmir earthquake, which left 75000 people dead, thousands injured and an estimated $7 billion loss to the Pakistani economy. According to United States Geological Survey (USGS), the territory of Pakistan is in a region categorized as “Indus-Tsangpo Sucture Zone[1]” – and is vulnerable to strong earthquakes due to continuous movement within thrust faults. This implies that due to the unpredictable nature of these movements, Pakistan will have to remain ready for such disasters in the future. An important question is whether the Pakistani government has learnt any lessons from past experiences (Kashmir 2005, Balcohistan 2013) to respond effectively to these emergency situations? It is important to note that natural disasters of such massive scale have long term implications for recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Unfortunately, despite the huge loss of life and property and massive donations from the international community after the Kashmir quake, the ability of government institutions to respond still remains practically limited – and legally vague. Traveling from Islamabad to Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-governed Azad Kashmir  one can see how life in these regions have not changed much in the last ten years; the healthcare centres are without any trained health care professionals;...

Can Imran Khan’s charisma survive the cacophony that has almost exclusively centered around the 2013 general election results? Or will the goodwill for his mission i.e., ensuring transparent elections, rule of law, meritocracy and good governance fade under his seemingly arrogant, self-righteous confrontationist approach? Regardless of the outcomes of the recent by-elections in Punjab, the PTI’s Pakistan-origin supporters and sympathisers abroad have begun asking the aforementioned questions. In numerous conversations in the Americas, Europe and Japan, between July and now with these Pakistanis, one could discern their frustration with Khan’s post-dharna ranting — as if they see him squandering the chance to change Pakistan. Why this visible craving for a better Pakistan? Because the societies these expatriates live in are primarily defined by the secular model of governance comprising fundamental ingredients of equal citizenry, the rule of law and merit. This governance regime, which largely treats every citizen indiscriminately — regardless of caste, creed, colour or social status — naturally evokes a strong desire of change back home. And beyond doubt, Imran Khan’s PTI has for some time served as that beacon of hope for a better Pakistan. But the fascination with Khan’s ‘revolutionary’ agenda is in many cases now giving way to a sense of despondency because of the PTI chairman’s hitherto fixation on the ‘2013 electoral fraud’. “How can a few favourable results turn the fate of Pakistan?” asked a wealthy car dealer in Tokyo. “Will Khan ever move away from his rhetoric on elections and political rivals?” asked another Pakistani settled in Geneva. Both have been quietly funding the party, probably fired by a passion to see a different Pakistan. Surprisingly, in a recent conversation in Istanbul, a few followers of Turkey’s mercurial leader Fethullah Gulen also wondered as to whether Khan has the ability to focus on real issues. Gulen, currently in self-exile in...

On November 1, millions of Turk voters will take part in a snap election to decide who will govern them, after the general polls on June 7 failed to produce a government. The election is taking place in a politically challenging environment, with most opposition parties gunning for what they call the fascist Justice Party while President Erdogan and prime minister Ahmet Davuto?lu struggle to cope with over two million refugees pushed into Turkey by the Syrian civil war. Having propelled Turkey into a decade of development and international importance, the ruling party now finds itself surrounded by a complex politically fragile and economically troubled neighborhood – the Euro-zone currency crisis, a debt-ridden Greece, the Syrian civil war spurred by ISIS and the anti-Asad rebels , the influx of Syrian refugees, and politically shaky Ukraine, Armenia and Georgia. Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, the President of Turkey, wants to be Bashkan – a Turkish synonym for a head of state with absolute power. He is pushing for a presidential system, probably inspired by the Russian President Vladimir Putin, who too manipulated his way from two prime ministerial stints into the all-powerful presidency. This craving for power aimed at subordinating  the executive, judiciary and the military not only brackets him with the likes of Putin, but also with Pakistani leaders like the Sharif brothers, who too believe that only absolute power can help them implement their economic vision. The AKP offers a strong argument in support of their case for a presidential system, especially if viewed against the country’s chequered history until the AKP came into power in 2002. This argument recently resonated at a dinner meeting organized for Turkish and foreign intellectuals and policy analysts in Istanbul. The chief guest, Ali Babacan, a young dynamic AKP member who has been a strong member of the cabinet until recently as a minister for economic and finance affairs, spelled out this vision. “The...