The world is watching with keen interest as nuclear talks between Iran and the six major powers — the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — enter their final phase. Chances of a deal being agreed uponwithin a week or so seem likely, although the possibility of last-minute hiccups cannot be ruled out. Iran’s problems with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the world powers began in 2002, when it was discovered that it was secretly engaged in uranium enrichment at a plant in Natanz and had established a heavy water reactor plant at Aarak. This raised suspicions that Iran was involved in nuclear arms production and had suspended it only when these facts became known. When Iran failed to respond to the demands of the six major powers to suspend its enrichment activity and other weapons-related projects, the UN Security Council, in 2006, imposed sanctions, and the US and European countries tightened the noose by slapping additional ones. Harsh sanctions had the desired effect of squeezing Iran’s economy, with its public getting restive. This helped in bringing a moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, to power in the 2013 elections. The same year, an interim agreement was signed with the P5+1, whereby some sanctions were relaxed in exchange for Iran agreeing to suspend its uranium enrichment and other weapons-related activities. Talks on the deal were extended beyond the deadline of June 30, 2015 and the parties are reported to be in the final stages of concluding it. The broad contours of the final deal aim at restricting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The country has agreed to reduce the 19,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow to 6,014, and the top ceiling of enrichment not to exceed 3.6 per cent. Iran’s ability to produce enriched uranium or plutonium, sufficient to make a bomb in three months, has been reduced to reaching that stage in one year. Iran’s main interest as of now seems to be in acquiring nuclear technology and developing a nuclear...

The world is watching with keen interest as nuclear talks between Iran and the six major powers — the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — enter their final phase. Chances of a deal being agreed uponwithin a week or so seem likely, although the possibility of last-minute hiccups cannot be ruled out. Iran’s problems with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the world powers began in 2002, when it was discovered that it was secretly engaged in uranium enrichment at a plant in Natanz and had established a heavy water reactor plant at Aarak. This raised suspicions that Iran was involved in nuclear arms production and had suspended it only when these facts became known. When Iran failed to respond to the demands of the six major powers to suspend its enrichment activity and other weapons-related projects, the UN Security Council, in 2006, imposed sanctions, and the US and European countries tightened the noose by slapping additional ones. Harsh sanctions had the desired effect of squeezing Iran’s economy, with its public getting restive. This helped in bringing a moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, to power in the 2013 elections. The same year, an interim agreement was signed with the P5+1, whereby some sanctions were relaxed in exchange for Iran agreeing to suspend its uranium enrichment and other weapons-related activities. Talks on the deal were extended beyond the deadline of June 30, 2015 and the parties are reported to be in the final stages of concluding it. The broad contours of the final deal aim at restricting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The country has agreed to reduce the 19,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow to 6,014, and the top ceiling of enrichment not to exceed 3.6 per cent. Iran’s ability to produce enriched uranium or plutonium, sufficient to make a bomb in three months, has been reduced to reaching that stage in one year. Iran’s main interest as of now seems to be in acquiring nuclear technology and developing a nuclear...

Pakistan’s impoverished southwestern province of Baluchistan is again in the grip of an acute water shortage. This is a recurring problem, but despite years of warnings, critics say the government is doing little. The province, which borders Afghanistan and Iran, is rich in natural gas and mineral resources, but water has long been scarce. With little rainfall, underground aquifers are the main source for drinking, agriculture and livestock. Tens of thousands of legal and illegal tube wells have been draining those reserves. The number of officially authorized tube wells is around 30,000. But there are at least another 30,000 illegal wells. The situation has reached a point where experts say the provincial capital Quetta will run out of water in the next few years without substantial conservation programs that help replenish the groundwater. Geological expert Abdul Razaq Khilji said that until a few years ago in the city of more than three million people, water could be found at about 90 meters deep. Now, water is beyond 365 meters, he says. The expense of digging such deep wells is beyond the reach of most families in the poverty-stricken region. “We are in the mining stage of digging wells and we are using the last aquifer system of the Quetta aquifer system. The central city has run out of underground water,” said Khilji. Farmers already reeling Baluchistan’s orchards are already in crisis, with production falling by more than 70 percent, says Abdur Rehman Bazai, Secretary General of the Baluchistan Farms Growers Association “The scarcity of water forced me to uproot around 7,500 fruit trees from my once profitable orchard and it has now turned it into a piece of barren land,” he added. It has also deprived around 400 families associated with the orchards of their livelihood, and they all have migrated to other areas, Bazai said. As tube wells dry up across the province, people are leaving. Farmers say many are abandoning agricultural businesses and are...

Following the passage of the 21st Amendment and amendments to the Army Act of 1952, military courts were established for the trial of terrorists/militants. These courts became functional and within weeks convicted and awarded death sentences to six militants. The executions were, however, stayed by the Supreme Court as the matter had become subjudice following a challenge to the 21st Amendment on the basis of the basic structure theory. Various comments have appeared since then for and against this politically unanimous but legally controversial decision. The proponents of the move justify it on the plea that tribunals, like the ones set up after the passage of the 21st Amendment, are envisaged under international humanitarian law (IHL) i.e., the Geneva Conventions 1949. They also argue that Article 245 of the Constitution, read with the amended Army Act, furnish a new framework of trial under the domestic “law of conflict”, as the country is faced with an extraordinary situation — indeed a state of war. Both the standpoints, however, are flawed, with serious implications for constitutional norms, rule of law and due process. Invoking IHL vis-a-vis the conflict in Pakistan is a dangerous proposition because the military operation in Fata cannot be categorised as a war or an armed conflict, as the militants/terrorists neither constitute a state nor a ‘non-state entity’. They do not possess the characteristics of an organised and disciplined force, wearing uniforms, carrying insignia or practising the rules of IHL. It is wrong to categorise Operation Zarb-e-Azb as “the case of armed conflict not of an international character in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties”, as envisaged by Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Calling it a war or armed conflict is tantamount to scaling up the operation into a full-fledged international conflict, thereby invoking the application of international law. Having said so, however, our parliamentarians unwisely used...

PESHAWAR: A lover's eyes compared to a drone strike, a smile to a suicide bomb and lips to fire. The violence of Pakistan's bloody insurgency has been injected into catchy pop lyrics after more than a decade of war against Islamists opposed to all forms of song and dance. Some of the hit songs are regarded as deeply poignant in the country's conservative Pashtun belt — but others are criticised as sensationalist, and accused of capitalising on the brutality. “Come, look straight into my eyes, attack my heart, come destroy everything, come destroy everything,” croons popular singer Rahim Shah in the video to “Shaba Tabahi Oka” (Come On Destroy Everything), as the famous Pashto-language film hero Arbaaz Khan dances. An actress gyrates her hips in response, singing: “Look at me, bomb my heart, come destroy everything.“ Then the hero, jumping, rolling and dancing, replies: “My Laila is carrying bombs in her eyes, you are killing me with your eyes, your lips are on fire — your short top is killing me and your trousers are tight.“ The song, which accompanies the popular 2012 Pashto film “Ghaddar “(Traitor), is still a top hit on video websites such as YouTube and Dailymotion. Pashto is the main language of northwest Pakistan, which has borne the brunt of the country's bloody decade-long battle with homegrown Islamist insurgents — and the focus of the CIA's drone missile campaign against militant commanders. The frequency of the violence people have witnessed in that time has seeped into popular culture, artists say, leaving a sometimes incongruous mark on the region's cultural output. In another Pashto movie, “Da Khkulo Badshahi Da” (Beautiful Are Always Crowned), released in 2014, a wiggling actress sings at the centre of a group of armed men, some clutching bottles of liquor and dancing. “My lips are sugary, I sing sweet songs, my intoxicating look is like a full glass of wine,” she says, before singing the song's title lyric: “I attack with my eyes, as lethal as a...

PESHAWAR: A lover's eyes compared to a drone strike, a smile to a suicide bomb and lips to fire. The violence of Pakistan's bloody insurgency has been injected into catchy pop lyrics after more than a decade of war against Islamists opposed to all forms of song and dance. Some of the hit songs are regarded as deeply poignant in the country's conservative Pashtun belt — but others are criticised as sensationalist, and accused of capitalising on the brutality. “Come, look straight into my eyes, attack my heart, come destroy everything, come destroy everything,” croons popular singer Rahim Shah in the video to “Shaba Tabahi Oka” (Come On Destroy Everything), as the famous Pashto-language film hero Arbaaz Khan dances. An actress gyrates her hips in response, singing: “Look at me, bomb my heart, come destroy everything.“ Then the hero, jumping, rolling and dancing, replies: “My Laila is carrying bombs in her eyes, you are killing me with your eyes, your lips are on fire — your short top is killing me and your trousers are tight.“ The song, which accompanies the popular 2012 Pashto film “Ghaddar “(Traitor), is still a top hit on video websites such as YouTube and Dailymotion. Pashto is the main language of northwest Pakistan, which has borne the brunt of the country's bloody decade-long battle with homegrown Islamist insurgents — and the focus of the CIA's drone missile campaign against militant commanders. The frequency of the violence people have witnessed in that time has seeped into popular culture, artists say, leaving a sometimes incongruous mark on the region's cultural output. In another Pashto movie, “Da Khkulo Badshahi Da” (Beautiful Are Always Crowned), released in 2014, a wiggling actress sings at the centre of a group of armed men, some clutching bottles of liquor and dancing. “My lips are sugary, I sing sweet songs, my intoxicating look is like a full glass of wine,” she says, before singing the song's title lyric: “I attack with my eyes, as lethal as a...

In the post-9/11 scenario, escalated terrorism and its psychological consequences have become the common characteristics of a host of places, ranging from Peshawar and Kabul to Baghdad. Popular songs like Pa Pekhawar Key Parhar Ma Jorawa/Da Kabul Parhar Jor Shawe Na De (Don’t hurt Peshawar because the wound of Kabul still bleeds) elucidate a tale of dejection and grief. Prior to 9/11, Peshawar had gone through colossal changes as a result of the Soviet-Afghan war. An influx of refugees led to the emergence of slums with the city extending decades’ long hospitality to displaced people. Badhabher, Munda, Kababian, Khazana and Mera Kachuri camps housed 450,000 registered refugees. This demographic explosion badly affected Peshawar’s sociocultural fabric. In 2002, the city had 2.2 million inhabitants. The present estimated population stands at 4.5 million, indicating a growth rate of 3.5 per cent. Peshawar, encircled by the Khyber and Mohmand agencies and Frontier Region Peshawar, has faced the brunt of terrorist incidents. Between 1979 and 2001, it witnessed 311 incidents of terrorism in which 252 civilians were killed. After 9/11, Peshawar emerged as one of the worst-hit cities, with 732 incidents of terrorism resulting in the deaths of 1,451 persons and injuring 3,384. With 381 killings in 2009, Peshawar registered the highest number of casualties ever in a year. Military operations in the adjacent tribal areas have resulted in another wave of internally displaced people entering Peshawar, comprising 72,385 families, including 56,360 and 6,812 from the Khyber and Kurram agencies respectively. This exodus is not only challenging the cultural values of the walled city, but also altering its demographic profile. Coming to the madrassas in the city, there are 243 such establishments in Peshawar in which 32,329 students, including 2,744 foreigners, are enrolled. There are a total of 1,353 schools in Peshawar, including 573 for girls. In comparison, Mansehra has 2,384,...