Why shouldn’t young minds turn towards extremist ideologies — I’m not talking of terrorism — if they are marginalised, their basic rights grossly violated, or if they are under-paid or unemployed? What role are many private educational institutions playing in promoting extremist tendencies among young academics? Is the state attentive to this? Is education a market economy product determined by the demand and supply principle, or is it a government responsibility (as promised underArticle 25-A of the Constitution)? The state is the guarantor of the right to education, bound to provide decent livelihoods as well as protect the youth from exploitation. These are some of the questions that must be posed to the Sharifs, the Zardaris, the Shahs, the Khans and all those political luminaries who tirelessly speak of turning Pakistan around. Not to forget those members of mainstream political parties who are running educational institutions. These include the Kasuris, the Chaudhrys, the Syeds and the Niazis. Under-paying highly educated young people employed by high-flying institutions affiliated with Oxbridge and other leading systems, is a perennial issue. Exploitation of the educated youth — both as teachers and students — is prevalent even in Islamabad, the capital, but this curse is omnipresent in its most oppressive forms in under-developed regions and those where the ruling elite control education boards or sit in parliaments. Although Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) has seen a proliferation of private universities and colleges, there has been little check on their fee and salary structures. The Abbottabad, Peshawar and Mardan boards seem to be hubs of corruption that are under the control of the political elite and their henchmen. Many of them are involved in issuing fake degrees and under-paying teachers, often invoking the demand-and-supply principle as if teaching were a commodity obtainable at a negotiable price. Some of Imran Khan’s colleagues in K-P are among those...

Pakistan's acquisition of advanced Russian MI-35 attack helicopters is a significant shift in Moscow's policy towards the South Asian nation. Islamabad is also purchasing Viper platforms from the US besides actively considering to acquire advanced Z-10 combat helicopters from China. Russia has ended its decades long self-imposed arms embargo on Pakistan by agreeing to sell four of its most advanced Mi-35 ‘Hind’ gunship helicopters. Primarily designed for attack and military transport missions, the Mi-35 is a multi-role combat helicopter manufactured by Rostvertol, a subsidiary of Russian Helicopters. “An agreement was signed between Pakistan and Russian authorities in Rawalpindi for the purchase of four MI-35 helicopters,” an unnamed senior military official told Pakistani daily The Express Tribune. Little is known about the deal, especially the exact cost of the helicopters. A Taiwanese news website had reported in June this year that in all Pakistan will be receiving 20 Mi-35s from Russia. “The two countries may also reach deals on the Pantsyr-S1 short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Mi-28E all weather attack helicopter and the 9K37 Buk Grizzly missile system,” said a report in Want China Times on June 26. The MI-35M is one of the modern combat helicopters in the inventories of Russia,Venezuela, Brazil, Azerbaijan, India and many other countries. India has at least 20 MI-35M helicopters in its inventory, some of which participated in the Kargil conflict in 1999. The deal is a major departure from Russia’s long denial of its military hardware to Pakistan. It is likely to bring discomfort to India, one of Russia’s closest allies and main arms supplier. In fact New Delhi has minced no words in expressing its opposition to the deal, that had been in the air for months. Moscow has remained India’s largest defense supplier for decades, with military sales crossing $40 billion since the delivery of MiG-21s in 1963...

What can we learn from Col Shuja Khanzada’s death? With most of the officially acknowledged 57 proscribed jihadi organizations headquartered in Punjab, the province stands out as the ideological center, social sanctuary and a viral recruitment ground for extremist organisations involved in various forms of terrorism across the country. Countless members of these organizations usually operate out of mosques and madarassas – apparently benign places of worship and learning. For long, the Punjab leadership ducked under denial, but the National Action Plan jolted them out of that state, and of late, the Punjab government did take some steps against proponents of militancy and terrorism. Guided by the blunt Shuja Khanzada, the Punjab Home Department geo-tagged 13,800 seminaries across the province, and also ordered closure of 170 of them – after determining that they were somehow a major source of extremism and sectarianism in Punjab. These seminaries were located in the southern districts of Jhang, Muzaffargarh, Layyah, Rajanpur, Dera Ghazi Khan, Kot Addu, Chiniot, Taunsa, Hasilpur and Vehari. Khanzada also approved freezing of about Rs 600 million of ‘doubtful’ funding of some madrassas and ordered a relentless pursuit of all those threatening public interest. The assassination of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) chief Malik Ishaq in a police encounter in Muzaffargarh on July 29 marked the high point thus far of the counter-terrorism campaign in the province. “There is no doubt Khanzada was leading the charge and stood by us in every operation,” recalls a senior police officer posted in southern Punjab. “The minister used to stay in touch with us during all critical operations and would inquire about the safety of our personnel.” Moral rhetoric hardly matters to terrorists His assassination therefore came as no surprise – in fact a logical consequence of his blunt public talk on terrorist outfits. The fact that the suicide bomber managed to walk up to him before blowing...

In recent days, we have seen the deaths of two former military officers, Lt General (retd) Hamid Gul, known for his pan-Islamist ideas, and Colonel (retd) Shuja Khanzada, whom terrorists — the purported agents of pan-Islamism — took down along with at least 18 others. The posthumous commentary on the two officers makes for an interesting study of their respective legacies. For instance, a flood ofaccolades followed Gul’s demise. Many grounded their appreciation for him citing his fierce patriotism, strategic planning, military professionalism, integrity, his love for radical forces (the Taliban) and anti-Americanism. These people never mentioned his key role in anti-democracy movements (creation of the IJI), as well as his support for forces which today are killing Afghans and Pakistanis. Gul’s was a career defined by defiance. He preferred retirement over being appointed to the post of director-general Heavy Industries Taxila, which he considered to be below his dignity. After retirement, he continued to propagate what he did while in uniform. That is why he was also erroneously seen by Indians and Afghans as a mouthpiece for the Pakistani security establishment. It is no surprise then that his detractors in India and Afghanistan declared Gul’s demise as “the death of the real Mulla Omar” for the simple reason that they often found him sitting with proponents of the Afghan Jihad Council — all of whom are viciously anti-West and anti-India. He never minced words nor held back his ‘vision’, which basically consisted of projecting the whole of the West bent on harming the Muslim ummah, regardless of the fact that the Muslim ummah itself is defined by ideological and political divisions, minimal or absent democratic norms, and is overshadowed by autocratic self-serving rulers. According to a noted blogger, it was one thing to pursue the aim of ousting the USSR from Afghanistan as our military understandably feared the possibility of Pakistan being the superpower’s...