When a supposed National Cyber Crime Agency (NCCIA) official witness, who could not even produce a valid NCCIA identification card, is cross-examined in this alleged cybercrime case and declares that using the term “enforced disappearance” in a tweet amounts to propagating a terrorist narrative, the farce underlying both the First Information Report (FIR) and the trial stands fully exposed.

The absurdity deepens when it is pointed out that the very same term has been used repeatedly by Pakistan’s Supreme Court, the Islamabad High Court, and other high courts; by politicians, including the current chief minister of Punjab, Maryam Nawaz Sharif; and that Pakistan itself has an official Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances. Yet the witness insists that when others use the term, it does not constitute terrorist propaganda, but when the accused uses it in this particular trial, even in a similar legal and factual context, it suddenly does.

This contradiction lays bare not only the falsehood underpinning the prosecution but also its mala fide intent. It shows how, in today’s Pakistan, words are being weaponized – stripped of their legal meaning and context – to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, and all those who question or criticize the policies and actions of the state and its institutions.

Take the term “enforced disappearance.” The NCCIA would do well to educate itself. Enforced disappearance is not a political slogan; it is a well-established concept in international law and international relations, particularly since the aftermath of the Second World War.

The first documented instance of systematic enforced disappearances occurred during WWII, when Nazi Germany covertly abducted thousands of people from occupied territories under the infamous 1941 Nacht und Nebel Erlass – the Night and Fog Decree.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal addressed this policy directly. Its judgments relating to the Night and Fog decree constituted the first application of international law to enforced disappearances. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, who was responsible for implementing the decree, was tried and executed for his role. As legal scholars have noted, the Nuremberg judgments established that conduct underlying enforced disappearance was prohibited under the customary laws of war and constituted a war crime carrying individual criminal liability (Brian Finucane, “Enforced Disappearance as a Crime Under International Law: A Neglected Origin in the Laws of War,” Yale Journal of International Law, 2010). These judgments also underscored that enforced disappearance amounts to a crime against humanity, not merely a war crime.

Against this backdrop, how can the government of Pakistan justify filing a cybercrime case against an individual simply for using the term “enforced disappearance,” accusing them of furthering a terrorist narrative?

The argument that referencing enforced disappearances necessarily accuses the state, law enforcement agencies, or intelligence services is also legally untenable. International law has always defined enforced disappearance within these parameters.

“In today’s Pakistan, words are being weaponized – stripped of their legal meaning and context – to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, and all those who question or criticize the policies and actions of the state and its institutions.”

 

A clear distinction exists between kidnapping by non-state actors and enforced disappearance. Kidnapping is an unlawful seizure carried out by individuals and is addressed under ordinary criminal law. Enforced disappearance, by contrast, involves the arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by state agents, or by non-state actors acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or concealment of the person’s fate or whereabouts.

This places the individual outside the protection of the law, making enforced disappearance not only a crime but a grave human rights violation.

This distinction is reflected consistently in United Nations’ resolutions and in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (ICPPED). Pakistan’s position further undermines the NCCIA’s claims because the country did not oppose two key UN General Assembly resolutions on enforced disappearances: Resolution 33/173 in December 1978 and Resolution 47/133 in December 1992. Both were adopted unanimously.

The 1978 resolution expressed deep concern over reports of enforced or involuntary disappearances resulting from excesses by law enforcement or security authorities and called on states to hold perpetrators accountable and assist in locating the disappeared. It also urged UN bodies to take action to prevent such practices. The 1992 resolution adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and paved the way for the ICPPED.

Although Pakistan is not a party to the Convention, its definitions reflect the consensus expressed in those earlier, unanimously adopted resolutions.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court has itself relied on the same definition, including in the Mohabbat Shah case. Article 1(2) of the ICPPED states that no exceptional circumstances — whether war, political instability, or public emergency — may be invoked to justify enforced disappearance. Article 2 defines enforced disappearance as the deprivation of liberty by state agents or those acting with state acquiescence, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or concealment of the person’s fate.

Enforced disappearances are not unique to Pakistan. They have occurred across the world — from Latin America to Asia and Africa — particularly during the Cold War era. The Indian state, for instance, has been implicated in enforced disappearances in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir since 1989, as well as in Punjab and Manipur during the 1980s and 1990s.

In many Latin American countries, the end of military dictatorships and the restoration of democracy led to the cessation of enforced disappearances and, in some cases, accountability for past crimes.

In Pakistan, however, impunity continues to prevail, despite our international commitments against enforced disappearance.

Recently, Pakistan’s military spokesman Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry held a prejudicial and inflammatory press conference and commented on the subject matter of Imaan and Hadi’s ongoing trial. It reveals the real origin of the case, making it clear that it is no longer possible for any court in Pakistan to adjudicate upon the matter in a fair and unbiased manner.

This trial is about whether Pakistan will uphold the rule of law, respect international legal norms, and protect the fundamental right to speak the truth.

Shireen Mazari

The writer is a defense and security analyst and served as Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights from 2018 to 2022.

The post How My Daughter’s Trial Exposes Pakistan’s Assault on Human Rights appeared first on Dissent Today.

Subsequently, others have followed suit. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose claim to power is a tenuous one, is seeking to boost his flagging popularity by honoring celebrity televangelist Zakir Naik as a state guest in Pakistan. Former PM Imran Khan also sought to boost his popularity as PM by nurturing the fiery fundamentalist preacher, Tariq Jamil. Once known for his ubiquitous presence at officially sponsored events, Jamil is nowhere to be seen now that his sponsor languishes in jail. 

Is Sharif’s desperate stunt working? Certainly. Thousands are turning up to hear Naik. But wherever he has gone, negative and angry reactions to his preaching messages have surfaced. Even the mainstream Urdu press – which normally adores such self-appointed guardians of Islam – has commented critically on his role. Naik’s harshness at a girl’s orphanage was particularly noted; he refused to award them certificates on grounds that girls – even little ones – should never be seen by men not related to them. Sharif’s allies also do not seem to be vocally supporting their leader’s red carpet to Naik. 

Prominent among other instances of Naik’s overt misogyny was his thoughtless cookie-cutter response to the query of a young Pushtun woman. With her head appropriately covered, she asked why pedophilia and abuse of girl children are so rampant in a society that strictly separates men from women and where almost all men pray regularly and sport beards. Naik turned upon her with impatience, ridiculing her question. While he could have said something to the effect that pedophiles will go to hell and should be thoroughly prosecuted, he instead chose to gaslight her and demanded she apologize for the question. He then gave his answer: Pakistan just isn’t Islamic enough.

The mass following enjoyed by preachers owes to a groundswell of religiosity that originated in the Zia-ul-Haq era and maintained by later governments. On the one hand Pakistani students have a state-designed curriculum heavily loaded with religious materials and, on the other hand, their narrow vision is made narrower by officially-sponsored motivational speakers and preachers who hop from campus to campus. Remember Zaid Hamid, the lal-topi walla, who was also state-sponsored and to be seen every night on TV channels? His fiery rhetoric – and that of countless others – helped create countless Da’ish (Islamic State) and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants.  

Religious preachers like Naik help deepen the vacuity of thought in young, propagandized minds. With little idea of how the rest of the world functions, they have been made to believe that all problems in Pakistan come from deviating from some idealized Islam. Daily atrocities by religious extremists who believe that the path to heaven lies in killing Pakistani soldiers and policemen are overlooked. While their mindsets were created by the unrelenting, constant state-sponsored propaganda, the explanation given is merely that they are “Kharji-ites”, i.e. misled followers of an ancient Islamic group with extremist ideals. 

Although its functionaries are being slaughtered daily, the government’s knee-jerk response to extremism has been to introduce yet more flavors of Islam in the hope that somehow these will cancel out the more violent variants. But, in fact, what the state is doing is adding fuel to the fire.

 Some say Pakistan may be honoring Naik as a state guest to spite India where he is a wanted fugitive on charges of terror financing, hate speech, inciting communal hatred, and money laundering. But if this is how Pakistan hopes to counter India, then it is to be pitied. Will it contribute to a rise in Pakistan’s status in the court of world opinion or will it go the other way? Help to rescue us from an economic abyss? 

Obvious as the answer is, the purist fantasy of a theological state – specifically that of Zia-ul-Haq’s “Nizam-e-Mustafa” or Imran Khan’s “Riyasat-e-Medina” – is very much alive in Pakistani society. Why demagogues can profitably use such slogans is easy to see. In a country that is deeply unequal, corrupt and plagued by huge class asymmetry, people yearn for an unblemished past when everything was perfect.

But, note! The present leaders of autocratic and authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, or Turkey are not peddling hype of some imagined past. While Recep Erdogan may privately ache for restoration of the caliphate abolished by Ataturk in 1924, only 8 percent of his supporters want this.  Prince Mohammed bin Salman has vowed to transform the hardline kingdom of Saudi Arabia into an open society that empowers citizens and lures investors.

Pakistani students have a state-designed curriculum heavily loaded with religious materials. And their narrow vision is made narrower by officially-sponsored motivational speakers and preachers who hop from campus to campus.

For good or for bad, the Saudis see orthodox Wahhabi Islam as a dead end. Instead they are choosing to opt for modernity, albeit Saudi-style oil-fueled modernity with a face-saving Islamic covering. Jihadist preachers like Zaid Hamid dare not go there anymore; he had to be rescued from a Saudi jail on his last visit there.

The Pakistani establishment – both political and military – is distressed at the cultural changes in the Middle East but does not have the guts to express an opinion lest the Saudis or Emiratis pull the rug from underneath them. Instead, by pushing conservative Islam, Pakistan now hopes to don the mantle of being Islam’s flag bearer and protector, as the only Muslim state with nuclear weapons. But this is delusional, empty boasting. An economically destitute and internally torn Pakistan can scarcely stand on its own two feet much less challenge Israel’s genocidal fury as it rampages across the Middle East.

Pervez Hoodbhoy

The author is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer

The post Pakistan Govt Is Hosting Televangelist Zakir Naik to Distract from its Unpopularity appeared first on Dissent Today.

Since the Iranian regime has a reputation for deaths occurring in custody, Mahsa’s murder caused nationwide outrage. Young people from all over Iran, including small rural towns and big cities, workers, students, professionals, and homemakers, gathered in the streets. They chanted Mahsa’s name and sparked an unexpected uprising. Their demands for change, which were collective and unified, quickly turned into a revolution that affected every aspect of Iranians’ lives, from Tehran to Toronto, Mashhad to New York, and Saqiz to Berlin. 

The regime responded by arresting, raping, and killing young Iranians. However, unlike in the past, social media allowed the world to witness the unimaginable cruelty of the regime in real time. Thus, this struggle became known to the world as a fight for women, life, and freedom, and the four decades of struggle by Iranians finally became the headlines of major media outlets worldwide.

As the movement grew, so did the horrifying suppression of the regime. Unlike previous protests that were brutally crushed during the four decades of the Islamic Republic’s rule, this one united Iranians worldwide. Its intersectionality with movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM), and demands for equality for women and queer individuals, exposed the regime’s atrocities and continuous human rights violations. The regime’s ban on American and European Covid vaccines resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Additionally, the regime’s actions such as the bombing of Flight 752, funding extremist branches of Islamists in the Middle East, failed economic policies leading to increased poverty, nepotism and corruption affecting its own activities, servitude to Russia and China, random executions, kidnappings, murders of opposition figures, and decades of neglecting the dignity of the Iranian people have further fueled the uprising. These actions have commanded urgent global attention and a call for action.

Despite the ongoing violence in Iran, including the blinding, kidnapping, and killing of young Iranians, the US was still planning a new nuclear deal with Tehran. This delay in condemning the regime’s atrocities and the behind-the-scenes negotiations with Iran’s nuclear team sparked outrage among Iranians. They felt that the US was trying to dilute their demands for regime change and instead push for a more tepid reformist approach. The frustration boiled over on October 22, when protesters forced U.S. envoy Robert Malley to apologize for his lack of sensitivity. 

Meanwhile, the killers of Mahsa were eager to revive the nuclear deal to undermine the people’s hopes for regime change. They feared that a new deal would legitimize the regime and enable it to continue its campaigns of violence, including executions, imprisonments, kidnappings and rapes without the fear of global repercussions. 

Unfortunately, to this day, a small but powerful cluster of regime apologists in the US and Europe continue to downplay the enormity of the regime’s human rights violations and push for a return to the status quo. Their exertions to legitimize the regime, however, have so far been unsuccessful as the world continues to empathize with the people of Iran and reject the legitimacy of the regime that runs on murder.

In April 2021, a few months after the illegal execution of Navid Afkari, a wrestling champion, whose crime was protesting against the regime, I was the keynote speaker at a Middle Eastern educational conference focusing on the new cultural paradigms in language classrooms. I discussed how the truth about Iranian culture and the tradition of resistance to the Islamic Republic have been disregarded by both publishing houses and the academia in the West, and how many Persian interlocutors prefer to present easy, albeit orientalist, images of and Iranianness as the culture to build their syllabi on.

I complained about the incessant focus on turquoise mosques, Persian food, and mystical poetry that left no space for the real story of Iran under the Islamic Republic. Iranian academics, I argued, have the choice to display the heroic culture of Iran’s revolutionaries or hide the truth under shades of blue domes and scents of rose water. The latter has proved to normalize the Iran where Navid Afkari pleads to the world to stand up for justice in Iran before it is too late. It was too late to save Navid Afkari, Mahsa Amini, Nika Shkarami, Mjidreza Rahnavard, Hadis Najafi, Kian Peerfalak, and thousands of others who were murdered by the regime; yet it is possible to use our voice to save millions of other Iranians by echoing their culture of resistance and struggle.

Therefore, on the anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death, I have chosen to use my voice to share the story of the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom and their heroic battle against an enemy that has subjugated them for decades. The purpose of this storytelling is twofold: to challenge those who seek to rewrite Mahsa’s revolution by changing the plot to a protest against hijab and revising the ending to a demand for reform, and to shed light on conscientious advocates of Iran’s cause whose voices have kept the revolution alive and triggered significant changes in global policies towards the regime.

 

The past year was undoubtedly the most traumatic year for Iranians since the Islamization of the country in 1979. Although the dark 80’s witnessed the horror of thousands of political prisoners being executed and buried in mass graves, never before had so many underage civilians been murdered, blinded, raped, poisoned, and executed in public.

 

These advocates include Iranian American students across US colleges who have been organizing demonstrations and vigils for the past year, American and European politicians who continue to stand with Iranians, global artists who are devoted to Mahsa’s Revolution, displaced musicians who empower Iranians with their songs, ex-pat authors who continue to write about the long-standing suffering of the people of Iran, compassionate journalists who keep Iranians in the headlines, and the ten million Iranians who have left Iran over the past four decades but remain steadfast in their love for their country.

The past year was undoubtedly the most traumatic year for Iranians since the Islamization of the country in 1979. Although the dark 80’s witnessed the horror of thousands of political prisoners being executed and buried in mass graves, never before had so many underage civilians been murdered, blinded, raped, poisoned, and executed in public. Along with the national unity that aims to dismantle the pan-Islamist regime, Iranians now have a valid hope for a brighter future, giving them the agency to demand change boldly.

Additionally, Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran, is an intelligent and humanitarian individual who is actively involved in the political arena. His presence has helped to make Iranians more optimistic about their future. He serves as a reminder of the nation that Iran could have been, and the nation that it will become when the ruling mullahs are overthrown.

The story of Iran is an ancient tale of resilience, and it is this historical struggle for freedom that provides Iranians with the inspiration to rise up collectively with the slogan: “We are a great nation; We will take back Iran.”

Yass Alizadeh

The writer is an Iranian-American academic and a Professor of Persian Language and Literature at New York University.

The post A Year After Mahsa Amini’s Tragic Death, Resistance Is Alive In Iran appeared first on Dissent Today.

On June 24, Manmohan Singh, a 35-year-old shop owner, was killed by an unidentified assailant in Peshawar while heading home from work in a rickshaw. This was the third incident of targeted killing of Sikhs in Peshawar this year, following the murder of the 40-year-old shopkeeper, Dyal Singh, in April. 

Dyal is survived by four children. According to his brother, Kaim Singh, during the month of Ramadan, Dyal would sell items at affordable prices at his shop. 

In another terror incident in July, Sardar Amir Chohan Singh narrowly survived an attack on Kohat Road in Peshawar. Singh was on his way to work when he encountered two individuals riding a motorcycle. The attackers had concealed their faces with masks and were carrying weapons with the intention of targeting Singh for a potential assassination. Singh was able to avoid the situation and safely returned home. An FIR was registered into this incident at the Rehman Baba Police Station, but the police have made no arrests so far. Tarlok Singh, the owner of a grocery store, survived a similar attack in June. 

In May 2022, two other shopkeepers, Ranjit Singh and Kuljit Singh, were shot dead at their shops in Bata Tal Chowk in Peshawar. 

Savinder Singh, the owner of a cosmetic shop in Saddar, Peshawar, received a threatening letter in July of this year that contained the message: “Next: “Next target soon. Wait for your turn. InshaAllah and Allahu Akbar”

Gurpal Singh, a Sikh activist and community leader, told Dissent Today that after the killing of Dyal Singh in April, approximately 159 families have left Peshawar for Punjab, with 80 children obtaining leave certificates from various schools in the city. He added that it is the Sikh men working as shopkeepers who are mostly being targeted in Peshawar. “The City of flowers”, he said, has now become “the city of blood”.’ Singh called on Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial to take suo motu notice of such incidents. 

The caretaker Chief Minister Muhammad Azam Khan had announced an amount of PKR 3,00,000 ($980) to the families of Tarlok who was injured in an attack, and compensation of PKR 10,00000 (about $3,267) for the family of the slain Manmohan Singh. However, activist Gurpaal Singh revealed that the cheques were never given to the families, referring to them as ‘dummy cheques.’ The families have written a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Peshawar regarding the order, but they are still struggling to receive the financial compensation. 

Sikhs leaving Pakistan – a country where they once found safety 

According to Gurpaal Singh, there are approximately 15,000 Sikhs left in Pakistan. Despite their small numbers, the Sikh community holds significant historical and cultural importance in the country.

Due to regional instability, many Sikhs in Afghanistan migrated to Pakistan, India, and other foreign countries in the 1990s. The population decrease in the region was primarily due to various conflicts, such as the Afghan war and civil wars of 1992, resulting in a significant Sikh diaspora, particularly from Kabul and Jalalabad. The population, which was between 200,000 and 500,000 in 1970, had dropped to around 700 in 2020, according to a Sikh businessman.

Prior to the partition of the Indian subcontinent, an estimated 2 million Sikhs lived in Pakistan, mainly in the Punjab region. However, their population has drastically declined to only a few thousand since 1947.

The migration of Afghan Sikhs to Pakistan was due to various reasons, including a lack of security, incidents such as the burning of gurdwaras, suicide bombings, the imposition of jizya tax, and the Taliban’s ban on cremation customs.

Prior to the partition of the Indian subcontinent, an estimated 2 million Sikhs lived in Pakistan, mainly in the Punjab region. However, their population has drastically declined to only a few thousand since 1947. According to Singh, roughly 7,000 Sikhs currently reside in Punjab, with a concentration in Nankana Sahib and Lahore. Additionally, approximately 6,000 Sikhs live in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

‘Militant group behind attacks against minorities’

Meanwhile, a police source told Dissent Today on the condition of anonymity that an investigation into the recent cases of targeted killing of the community was ongoing, which is why details regarding handlers and cells cannot be disclosed. The source indicated that there is ‘one militant group’ responsible for all cases of targeted killings of religious minorities in Peshawar this year.

According to a police source, a total of nine people were targeted, including three Muslim religious leaders, two Sikhs (one of whom survived the attack but was injured), one Shia, and two Christians. The police source further stated that the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP), a.k.a. Daesh, has claimed responsibility for the targeted attacks. According to another police source, a 30-bore weapon was used in the recent killings, and there is a resemblance among weapons used in different attacks.

When asked about the upsurge in targeted killings in Peshawar, the police source attributed it to the influx of people migrating from Afghanistan to Pakistan due to the policies of the Afghan Taliban who have been ruling the country since 2021. In response to these attacks, the police claimed to have provided security to minority communities, installing security checkpoints at undisclosed hotspots after the killing of Manmohan Singh.

Radesh Singh Tony, a human rights activist, and Chairman of the Minority Rights Forum, stated that the Sikh community was being targeted not just in Peshawar but other parts of the country as well. Tony stated that these targeted killings began in 2013, starting with extortion and kidnapping incidents.

He said the first person to be killed in such targeted attacks was Bhagwan Singh in 2013 in Charsadda. In 2016, Dr. Soran Singh, the provincial minister for minority affairs, was also killed, he added. 

Criticizing the government, Tony, who once contested an election from Peshawar’s PK-75 constituency, questioned why they failed to trace the threatening calls and nab the culprits before the killings. According to the activist, the Sikh community is an easy target because they are recognizable due to their turbans and beards. 

Hate speech through loudspeakers 

Tony also stated that clerics in mosques practice hate speeches against minorities through loudspeakers, which is a reason for this rise in targeted killing of the Sikh community in the city.

Tony proposed that community policing should be introduced in bazaars by the government or police to easily identify terrorists, as the province lacks a dependable CCTV footage system. Despite victims reporting extortion calls, the police have not responded. 

“The biggest evidence of failure is that no one has ever been brought to justice for these crimes against the community,” he said.

However, a police source claimed that Police Liaison Committees already function as community policing. Another police source, addressing the absence of adequate CCTV cameras in bazaars, stated that they are working on the matter from multiple angles. The police also revealed that they have deployed a special force group for this purpose.

Shaeran Rufus

The writer is a Karachi-based journalist passionate about human rights, social issues, and minority advocacy. She tweets at @ShaeranRufus

The post Peshawar’s Sikh Families Are Leaving Their Homes to Escape New Wave of Targeted Killings appeared first on Dissent Today.

In the 76th year of Pakistan as a Muslim-majority state, confined since 1971 to the former West Pakistan when its eastern wing seceded to become Bangladesh, all indicators of economic, political and social development indicate negative trends. Scores for India from which it separated in 1947 and Bangladesh which separated from it in 1971 for such indicators are significantly better.

Pakistan’s ruling class, the power elite, the establishment or the deep state — whatever description one chooses to describe it — is notoriously and proverbially corrupt, inept, irresponsible and uncaring. Economically and financially, Pakistan is for all practical purposes a bankrupt state heavily under debt to foreign institutions and states. Its ability to borrow loans has reached a point of saturation. China’s CEPC project in Pakistan which was to be the panacea to overcome chronic electricity deficit, build roads and developmental infrastructure and generate new employment opportunities, is in the doldrums.

Business and trade are in a very bad shape. Industrial growth and development have stagnated. Pakistan remains largely an exporter of raw materials and semi-finished goods. Once the granary of India, exporting wheat from Punjab to other parts of the subcontinent Pakistan now suffers acute shortage of food and vegetable and galloping inflation has caused a price hike of essential commodities pushing more and more people towards poverty. Notwithstanding the mounting difficulties of the people, the Pakistani ruling class remains oblivious to the suffering of the people.

Politically, Pakistan has failed to establish civilian supremacy. Although a constitution from 1973 is in place upholding fundamental rights and other liberal values, several Islamic features and commitments hedge in those rights. Overall, Pakistan’s representative and democratic institutions lack credibility because elections have not been institutionalized and it is the military or rather the Pakistan Army which calls the shots. Its major political parties are either dynastic preserves or dominated by cult leaders. Mass media churns out biased reports and programmes.

The English-language press generally reflects a rational-liberal mode of thinking the much bigger Urdu-language press is prone to sensationalism. For a long time, extremist ideas and movements promoting militant Islam have had a free hand with proclivity towards violence including mob attacks on non-Muslims, atypical sects and free thinkers.

Socially, Pakistan remains the most conservative society in the subcontinent. Vain attempts to Islamize Pakistan have generated intolerant attitudes which are invariably hostile towards women and religious minorities. The annual reports of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan report heinous crimes committed against women and non-Muslims. The lack of an effective family planning and birth control policy has meant that Pakistan’s population growth rate remains the highest when compared to India and Bangladesh.

Equally, literacy rates lag behind India and Bangladesh and especially those of females. Some 35 million children are out of school and 45 million are estimated to be suffering from chronic malnutrition. Pakistan’s higher educational institutions are woefully inadequate in encouraging independent and critical thinking or in instilling scientific curiosity. The compulsory teaching of Islam in the schools and colleges has meant extra burden on students without such knowledge having any meaningful relevance for their careers and employment opportunities. Moreover, the teaching of Islam does not exempt non-Muslim pupils. Overall, the educational system inculcates prejudices against non-Muslims. Externally, India is especially described as the enemy of Pakistan and Muslims. Pakistan is generally portrayed as the citadel and bastion of Islam. The Pakistan military is celebrated as a garrison state ready to defend its territories, Islam and Muslims from external and internal enemies and fake stories of military victories during wars with India are taught in the educational institutions.

 

Attempts to Islamize Pakistan have generated intolerant attitudes which are invariably hostile towards women and religious minorities.

Most of Pakistan’s current ills are rooted in the ideologization of politics. A state driven by ideology invariably operates at the cost of national interest. It leads to the obfuscation of the objective reality which in turn results in flawed policies. Rational self-interest whether of the individual or a state must be based on a careful examination of the objective reality and the options available to deal with it. It requires flexibility and pragmatism and the rule of law.

Pakistan’s confessional ideology has proved to be dysfunctional
Winning Pakistan in the name of a confessional ideology which dichotomized Hindus and Muslims as two discrete, hostile but homogeneous nations was undoubtedly the masterstroke upon which the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, won the case of Pakistan. However, it was a misleading depiction of Hindus and Muslims. The fact was that both Hindus and Muslims were deeply divided from within. Caste divisions among Hindus were notorious but the Muslims were equally deeply divided because of sectarian and sub-sectarian differences in belief and doctrine. Moreover, both Hindu and Muslim communities were amorphous entities comprising millions of people dispersed all over the Indian subcontinent. Ethnicity, language and other particularistic identities and local associations played a major role in defining their day-to-day lives.

At any rate, Pakistan came into being in a most violent and bloody manner with more than a million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs killed in heinous communal conflicts and 14-15 million of them crossing the border between India and Pakistan. Yet, millions of Muslims were left behind in India while a much smaller Hindu minority stayed on in Pakistan (since 1971 confined to West Pakistan).

Another of Jinnah’s masterstrokes was to evade describing what sort of state Pakistan would be. In his hundreds of speeches, statements and messages can be found those which describe future Pakistan as a Muslim democracy, others which portray it as an ideal Islamic state inspired and informed by Islamic law and the praxis of state from pristine 7th Century Islam and one solitary state made on 11 August 1947 where he waxed eloquence about Hindus and Muslims being equal citizens of Pakistan.

In his later public speeches, he returned to the organic connection between Islam and Pakistan but insisted such a connection meant both democracy and ideal protection of minorities. However, regarding centre-province relations, Jinnah, who before Pakistan came into being,was a champion of decentralization, became a vehement opponent of what he decried as parochialism and provincialism, emphasizing that Muslims were a nation of faith while regionalism was a tool of the enemies of Pakistan.

Most of Pakistan’s current ills are rooted in the ideologization of politics. A state driven by ideology invariably operates at the cost of national interest. It leads to the obfuscation of the objective reality which in turn results in flawed policies.

In an interview given to the former foreign minister of Pakistan Sahibzada Yaqub Ali Khan and Syed Ahsan, his military and naval who wanted to know why no progress on the constitution was being made and why India was moving fast to frame one for itself Jinnah admitted candidly that he had been making contradictory pledges to different schools of thought among Muslims. Therefore, he had reposed the duty of framing of the constitution of Pakistan to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.

The first move on the constitution was made on 7 March 1949 when Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan moved the Objectives Resolution. It called for Pakistan to be an ideal Muslim democracy upholding the sovereignty of God. He reiterated that Pakistan will be a modern democracy in which fundamental rights will be enjoyed in accordance with the lofty standards of Islam. What such rhetoric meant concretely for constitution and law-making was not spelled out. While the few Hindu members of the Constituent Assembly invoked Jinnah’s 11 August 1947 speech to plead for a secular Pakistan, the Muslim members who spoke in support of the resolution unanimously underscored that Jinnah had ad infinitum described Pakistan as a state for Muslims and where Islam will be the main source for constitution and law making, but assured the Hindus that would not mean a theocracy but a spiritual democracy fair to all.

What followed thereafter were protracted deliberations on the democratic and Islamic character of Pakistan. The constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973 contained familiar civil, political, social and cultural rights but hegded them in by Islamic limits! The current constitution of 1973 added more Islamic features. Not only the president but also the prime minister was to be Muslims. In 1974, the Pakistan Parliament unanimously declared Ahmadis as non-Muslims because they did not believe that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the last of the prophets sent by God. Under General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Hudood and blasphemy laws and several misogynist laws and practices were introduced. They brutalized sensibilities and encouraged a mob mentality preying on those suspected of disrespect to pure and true Islam. Some 96 people have thus far been killed by frenzied mobs and among them have been Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and even free-thinking Muslims of Sunni origin.

The introduction of zakat tax by Zia was rejected by the Shia minority which agitated for exemption from it because they were not willing to pay it to a Sunni state. In the 1990s,a proxy war was fought on Pakistani soil between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia through their sectarian affiliates in the form of armed militias. The terrorism which followed claimed hundreds of lives, but the upper hand belonged to the Sunni extremists who not only formed a majority of 85 per cent but were supported by state agencies. The gruesome assassinations of the Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer and of the Federal Minister of Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti in 2011 are cases of terrorist attacks on high profile individuals, but the extremists have not even spared foreigners working in Pakistan. All this is verifiable from the Pakistani press and annual reports of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

In short, Pakistan is a state whose ideology has taken upon itself the responsibility not only to perform the three main functions all states are expected to perform: protect its population from external aggression, punish crime and provide conditions to produce the material goods needed to sustain and reproduce society, but also to ensure that its policies pave the way for the salvation of true believers. It is a pre-modern ideology harking back to a golden past oblivious to the objective reality of diversity of beliefs within Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Such developments have placed Pakistan high on the list of countries where extensive, systematic violation of human rights of people take place

Using Urdu to eradicate regional identities has provoked separatist reactions
Closely related to Islam as the basis of nation and nationalism is the problem that Urdu is declared the language of Muslims and therefore a core element in the Pakistan ideology. Its roots go back to the polemics between the Indian National Congress which wanted Hindustani to be the national language of a united India with two official scripts, Devanagari and Urdu-Persian and all provinces having the right to use in their province their mother-tongues for government communications and education. This was rejected by the Muslim League; it insisted that Urdu was the mother tongue exclusively of Muslims. This was not true because not only Muslims but also Hindus and Sikhs were literate in Urdu. But Jinnah insisted on communalizing the language issue.

After Pakistan came into being the state was hellbent on establishing a nation which not only shared one faith but also spoke and wrote one language. The fact was that in 1947 Pakistan contained five major indigenous language groups: nBengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pakhtuns and Baloch and several smaller groups such as Brauhi speakers in Balochistan, Saraiki speakers in southern Punjab and lower Sindh and some even smaller groups. The Urdu-speakers who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from North India and Hyderabad State formed less than 4 percent of total population. That percentage has increased to 7 percent after East Pakistan broke away from Pakistan to become Bangladesh in 1947.

The imposition of Urdu on Bengalis was one major reason why they were disillusioned with Pakistan. Unlike Punjabis and to some extent educated Sindhis, Pakhtuns and even Baloch were conversant in Urdu but not Bengalis. The language issue in Bengal was the beginning of Bengali resentment against the West Pakistani establishment which they accused of exploiting the resources and income of East Pakistan to finance the development of West Pakistan. Cumulative grievances of the Bengalis finally culminated in the breakup of Pakistan in 1971.

In post-1971 Pakistan, the language question continues to produce resentment in Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. There is no doubt that using Urdu as the medium of education has made it the link language between the four provinces of Pakistan, but the suppression of regional languages and cultures alienates the dominated minorities from the Punjabi dominated Pakistan government. It can be pointed out that by using Islam and Urdu as ideological tools in 1955 the four provinces of West Pakistan were amalgamated under the One-Unit scheme into the single province of West Pakistan. Such forced amalgamation was never accepted by the dominated provinces and in 1969 the One-Unit was dissolved and Punjab, Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan became separate provinces.

Such a tendency resulted in protests from the provinces and was a major contributing factor to bitter relations between the centre and the provinces. However, protracted negotiations finally forced the hand of the central government, and the 18th Amendment was agreed whereby many of the powers were handed over to the provinces and their share of the national budget and resources increased to 53 per cent to the provinces and the rest to the centre. Even after the agreement, calls are being given to regain the powers by the centre because of external and internal threats to Pakistani unity.

India-centric and Kashmir-fixated foreign policy has ruined Pakistan

The third pillar on which the Pakistan ideology rests is the belief that India has never accepted the creation of Pakistan and is constantly conspiring to undo Pakistan. From 1937 onward, Jinnah began warning that in a united India Islam will be annihilated and Muslims obliterated and therefore the creation of Pakistan was a matter of life-and-death for Muslims. Ironically, he was willing to leave 2 crore Muslims in India to be sacrificed and smashed to liberate 7 crores from the yoke of Hindu rule. In any case, bitter conflicts over the share of the colonial kitty and conflicting claims to territory degenerated into zero-sum games between them at international forums.

In any case, neither Jinnah nor Liaquat Ali Khan put any high premium on democratic procedures. After their deaths, a serious dearth of civilian leadership paved the way for the civil servants to call the shots, and they in turn were superseded by the most powerful institution in Pakistan, the Pakistan Army. In any case, conflicting claims over Kashmir resulted in the first India-Pakistan war of 1947-48 which left the former princely state divided between the two rivals. Having co-opted itself into Western military alliances, Pakistan received advanced military hardware and initiated military actions which resulted in the second war with India in 1965. Again in 1971, Pakistan went to war with India and after both rivals had acquired nuclear weapons in 1998, a mini-war at Kargil took place. The arms race between them has meant scarce national resources being directed towards wasteful projects to purchase and produce advanced weapons. Moreover, after the so-called Afghan jihad, Pakistan became the base from which so-called non-state actors such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jash-e-Muhammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and several other organizations carried out terrorist attacks in the Indian-administered Kashmir as well as major Indian cities.

Pakistan also became the epicenter of extremism and terrorism where Pakistani and foreign warriors were trained to attack targets in the West. All such vainglory misadventures have earned Pakistan the unenviable reputation of a rogue state.

Umma internationalism has only won Pakistan Brownie points
One can mention that championing Islamic/Muslim causes is part of the overall Islamic ideology although when it comes to China and its ill-treatment of the Uighur Muslim minority reported by the United Nations and other international human and minorities organizations Pakistan maintains a complete silence. In fact, atheistic China is Pakistan’s closest friend and benefactor.

Already, we have paid a very heavy price in getting involved in the so-called Afghan jihad and in propping up the Taliban movement in Afghanistan which is again now wreaking havoc in Pakistan.

Conclusion

Unless Pakistan can extricate itself from such an ideology, its democratic credentials will always be questioned. One way to retain Islam as a moral reference for good and responsible governance is to bring all mosques directly under the state and make the clerics state employees who can lead prayers according to their sectarian and sub-sectarian rituals, but they should be strictly forbidden to take part in politics. The Friday sermon should be prepared by the state in which social service, tolerance, cleanliness, birth control and other such subjects should be emphasized.

One way to retain Islam as a moral reference for good and responsible governance is to bring all mosques directly under the state

More importantly, the educational system must be freed from the stranglehold of ideology. There is ample material available showing that instead of encouraging rational, scientific, independent and creative thinking the textbooks disseminate prejudices against non-Muslims especially Hindus and India. Such an educational system fails to equip students with positive attitudes and stands no chance of competing with other societies in the production of knowledge.

Moreover, Pakistan must accept the multi-linguistic and multicultural nature of Pakistani society and new provinces can be created to reflect the diversity of cultures and identities of the Pakistani people. Forced assimilation will never work. On the other hand, if equitable relations with the provinces are established then Urdu will naturally be the language which will integrate them and while regional cultures and identities can flourish as well.

It is imperative that seeking confrontation with India will always require increasing investments in the arms race. Pakistan is already financially and economically ruined. Knowing fully that the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved through war and invoking UN resolutions on Kashmir is a huge waste of time Pakistan can accept the Line of Control the international border between India and Pakistan but with the proviso that both states would guarantee maximum autonomy to the Kashmiri people including free movement of Kashmiris across the border.

Trade between India and Pakistan can bring great benefit to both countries but especially Pakistan. If India and China trade can increase from 100 billion USD per annum to 139 USD per annum and China and the US can manage to continue trading at a very high level despite the rising tensions between them there is no reason Pakistan and India should not do so. Restoration of trade relations with India could prove to be the stimulus it needs to start growing again.

We need to concentrate our attention on improving the dismal life conditions of the vast majority of Pakistani people instead of hypocritically championing perceived Islamophobic causes and supporting extremist movements in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

In short, Pakistan must learn to function internally and externally in compliance with the prevailing norms of legitimate government, respecting the rule of law internally and internationally as well as its obligations in the external domain.

Ishtiaq Ahmed

The writer is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He can be reached at: billumian@gmail.com

The post Can Pakistan Ever Become a Normal Country? appeared first on Dissent Today.

Further, the Committee notes that “the trial of civilians in military or special courts may raise serious problems as far as the equitable, impartial and independent administration of justice is concerned.” Accordingly, “trials of civilians by military or special courts should be exceptional, i.e. limited to cases where the State party can show that resorting to such trials is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials.” 

In Pakistan, court martial trials of civilians are opaque, biased and heavily dependent on the whims and wishes of military high command. There is no meaningful right of appeal; no free and unimpeded access of accused to counsel; no provision of record/documentation to counsel for the accused; and perhaps most concerning of all, military officers take on the role of judges, when they do not possess the requisite training or capacity to do so. Imagine the converse if your mind cannot process the nature or magnitude of the problem: judges being sent to defend our borders with a copy of the Constitution. If that is laughable, so is the idea that those tasked with defending Pakistan against external aggression, have the training or capacity to dispense justice. Different organs of the State/Government have differing responsibilities — for good reason.

Following the horrific cold-blooded murder of Pakistan’s children in the Army Public School (APS) terrorist attack, the nation was traumatized and that trauma resulted in poor decision-making (there were only a handful of people who chose principle over panic – the late Asma Jahangir included of course). If anything was Pakistan’s “9/11”, it was that absolutely tragic mass murder of this country’s children. Anyone who recalls the waves of terrorism that engulfed Pakistan, and the indiscriminate military operations ostensibly aimed at countering that terrorism, will remember that despite us ceding our civil liberties by allowing the 21^st Constitutional Amendment, we were not safe then and we are not safe now. In fact, even after our 9/11, we refused to course correct. Ehsanullah Ehsan – the man we were told made it necessary for us to surrender our civil liberties – roams free while a young man who stole a peacock from the Corps Commander House Lahore is languishing in prison. So in the eyes of the state, the value of the Corps Commander’s peacock far outweighs the value of human life – in fact a Pakistani child’s life.

In a June 2016 briefing paper by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), titled “Military Injustice in Pakistan,” it was observed that “Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.” It would appear that Law Minister Adam Namer Tarar was in a deep slumber from 2015 till date because there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for why he is actively misleading the public today with entirely false statements claiming that Pakistan’s military courts comply with international minimum protections for fair trial and due process. This is not only disingenuous but also in breach of the Minister’s oath, which places on him the obligation to “do right to all manner of people, according to Law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” That “all manner of people” includes all of Pakistan’s citizens, irrespective of whether they are Baloch students, activists of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) or even political workers of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI).

In Pakistan, court martial trials of civilians are biased and heavily dependent on the whims of military high command. There is no meaningful right of appeal, and most concerning of all, military officers take on the role of judges.

Such barefaced defense of the unjustifiable isn’t limited to the Law Minister. The Government machinery has gone into overdrive to defend military court trials of civilians, which they themselves will likely be the victims of a few years from now. One must remember to ask the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant Mr. Atta Tarar how he feels about the “three rights of appeal” in that eventuality. After all, in Pakistan, we only seem to care if and when we become victims of an injustice.

In a country where even the mildest of criticism of the military high command can result in trial by court martial, it is alarming that the entire civilian set up (that holds power as a trust for the people of Pakistan) is performing mental gymnastics to deal a final blow to any prospect of civilian supremacy or control. 

Action against May 9 rioters 

The acts that took place on 9 and 10 May are nothing more than offences triable under the Pakistan Penal Code – they neither require trials by anti-terrorism courts nor court martial trials. To suggest that acts of arson or attacks on public property – criminal offenses under the Penal Code – require civilians to be subjected to trials by military officers, who do not even have basic understanding of the law, is beyond absurd and dangerous.

One need only recall the enforced disappearance and secret trial of human rights defender, Idrees Khattak, resulting in his continued incarceration. In November 2019, Idrees Khattak was forcibly disappeared and there was no information available on his fate or whereabouts up until several months later. In June 2020, it was discovered that Idrees Khattak was in the custody of the agencies working under the Ministry of Defence, in connection with a case under the Official Secrets Act. What followed exactly, no one knows (due to the inherent non-transparency and secrecy that surrounds military courts which is not denied but in fact justified on grounds of “confidentiality” and “national security”). However, Idrees Khattak was tried and sentenced to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. He is not the only civilian who has been subjected to biased and opaque court martial proceedings. In Pakistan, where all power rests with Rawalpindi (with zero accountability for exercise of that power), there can never be even the remotest possibility of fair trial of civilians by court martial.

Have civilian courts failed to serve justice?

There is no weight in the argument being deployed by the civilian face of the present martial law to justify court martial of civilians. However, so that the uninterrupted flow of disinformation can be countered, the same is addressed below. The main (and rather audacious) line of argument adopted by those who lectured us on giving “respect to the vote”, is that the ordinary courts have failed to dispense justice and so there is a need for military courts. 

First, this flawed argument presumes (incorrectly) that military courts ensure fair dispensation of justice. This is contrary to the facts, research, judicial record and our history. Second, these courts which are being looked down upon by the civilian leadership are the same ordinary courts that are flooded each time it rains, where lawyers, judges and litigants alike sit for hours on end, covered in dirt and sweat in a tiny court room, functioning within a system that is heavily overburdened as a result of both frivolous/fake cases by the State against its own citizens and a refusal by the very same State to allocate sufficient funds/resources for functioning of the judiciary. Further, these are the same courts that rely on effective and timely investigations to proceed. How effective will those investigations be when investigating officers carry out the same on their own personal expense (with no proper reimbursement) because each successive government refuses to treat them as public functionaries, deserving of dignity in their work? Where for several decades the bulk of this country’s resources have been misallocated towards defense and defense-related expenditures, and luxuries for the ruling elite, what court system can deliver justice in these circumstances? More importantly, is it even reasonable to have this expectation when the civil-military imbalance has resulted in complete disintegration of all civilian institutions? And finally, with constant interference in the judiciary, brazen flouting of court orders, and intimidation of judges, by the military establishment, are we really to expect that those who dismantled our civilian structure will adhere to fair trial and due process guarantees in a system run entirely on their whims and wishes?

When the ordinary criminal law punishes arson, rioting and attacks on public property, there is no cogent reason why these offenses should be tried in anti-terror courts or by court martial.

There is no dispute over the poor functioning of our ordinary courts, however, military courts are not – and can never be – a solution to the problem because they are in fact an illustration of the State’s skewed priorities that have caused the problem in the first place. It is truly baffling why the civilian government is insistent on defending what is glaringly unconstitutional. Is the desire to completely dismantle and punish the PTI really greater than the desire for civilian supremacy? And is that desire to dismantle still greater than the desire for self-preservation of civilians/politicians in the long run?

Amidst all the propaganda and miscalculated defense of military court trials of civilians, it is pertinent to remember that when the ordinary criminal law protects against, and punishes, arson, rioting and attacks on public property, there is no cogent reason why these offenses should be tried in anti-terror courts or by court martial. To do so is also contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and in contravention of Article 4 of the Constitution, as held in the Waris Ali Case (2017 SCMR 1572): “The phrase ‘to be treated in accordance with law’ includes that every citizen must be dealt with according to law applicable to him, subject of course to the facts and circumstances of the case. If any citizen is triable under the ordinary penal law of the land, then treating him harshly under special law, not clearly applicable to him, would be a violation of the command of the Constitution.” 

Unfortunately however, the theater of the absurd continues in Pakistan as the climate of fear is at an all-time high. Politicians scramble to snatch the polish out of each other’s hands while the boots reward such servility by momentarily lifting their weight off the polisher’s neck. Tomorrow, each one of the politicians knows that the might of the boot will once again endanger their very own existence, but the choice is pettiness and vengefulness over reason. The delight of watching their opponents suffer (like they suffered in the past) is too good an opportunity to miss. And so it goes on and on, but real power (and exercise of that power with impunity) remains with the military establishment. 

Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir

The writer is an Islamabad-based lawyer and human rights activist.

The post Trial By Firing Squad: Prosecuting Civilians in Military Courts is Unconstitutional appeared first on Dissent Today.

But ask yourself whether this is why Imran Khan finds fault with the military. Obviously not! I cannot think of a single occasion where he has criticized the army’s business interests, land grabs, pursuance of enmities with our neighbors, or deplored the Taliban’s atrocities. Khan’s only gripe with the army is that after hoisting him into power it lost enthusiasm and turned “neutral”. Only animals are neutral, he famously said. We all know how earlier on he proudly would repeatedly declare that he and the army are – to quote his famous phrase – “on the same page”.

In a nutshell, Imran Khan will happily reconcile with the army as long as it will help return him to power. He hopes that they can be on the same page again. But that page is not one of democracy, more personal liberties, elimination of corruption, or economic equality through land reform. PTI’s protests are only about one thing – returning Khan to the throne which he believes rightly belongs to him. He has no manifesto for doing away with the systemic ills that have plagued Pakistan since its birth; in fact they are not even mentioned these days. Khan’s is a naked power grab. Democrats and progressives need to understand that.

Senior leaders leaving PTI – a case of coercion?

Meanwhile, senior PTI leader Shireen Mazari has announced she is quitting PTI and active politics after her release from jail. Many other leaders have left the party in the past few days. This is indeed a clear case of coercion. While Mazari and others have my sympathy – and I hope they do not get physically hurt – please note that these people didn’t stand for any principle and their stint in power was only to defend their boss and his policies. Never did they do anything to recover the thousands who went missing in Balochistan. Mazari has jumped parties countless times and was always very close to the army, but ultimately had to choose between that and her boss. Others like Fayyaz ul Hassan Chohan have also been forced to jump off the bandwagon. Those who had enjoyed power – which is all that they wanted in any case – are unwilling to bet on Imran Khan anymore.

A superior force is getting its way. May 9 has become a rallying cry for the army. Imran Khan badly miscalculated the consequences of taking the army head-on in this way. His party will now be broken up and whittled down to a bunch of die-hards. Is this resurgence of the military good for Pakistan? No, not at all.

Still, in the larger scheme of things, it does not matter whether or not the army, PTI, and PDM negotiate it out. It’s the economic collapse which is more serious. And still more serious is the drift towards extremism of a large, religiously intoxicated population which, in the blink of an eye, can be whipped up into a frenzy and which lynches anyone accused of blasphemy. In all essential matters the army, PTI, and PDM are very much on the same page. What Pakistan needs to do is turn the page.

Failure of project Imran – any lessons learned?

The military establishment has learned no lessons from the failure of Project Imran. The army is too powerful, too entrenched, and too deeply imbued with the notion that it is the only savior of Pakistan. The retreat we are presently seeing is purely temporary, and the offence posture is coming back. Yes, Project Imran crashed and therefore last November we had outgoing General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s famous mea culpa where he confessed that for seven decades the army had “unconstitutionally interfered in politics”.

May 9 has become a rallying cry for the army. Imran Khan badly miscalculated the consequences of taking the army head-on in this way. His party will now be broken up and whittled down to a bunch of die-hards. But this resurgence of the military is not good for Pakistan.

Even with Project Imran’s failure, the army’s thinking is much as before: those “bloody civilians” will make a mess of things if given too much latitude and so the army sees itself remaining the final guardian of Pakistan’s national interest. Of course this “interest” is that which the army perceives. It does not coincide with that of the ordinary Pakistani. While many emerging countries have also suffered periods of military dictatorship – Indonesia and Argentina being examples – there was enough learning there, and military rule did not recur. Pakistan is different.

As things stand, the oligarchy that rules Pakistan is largely Punjabi and largely military with just a smattering of civilians. It sees no way to preserve its extraordinary privileges except through a large military which justifies its size by invoking Kashmir. Fortunately for them, Kashmir has no foreseeable resolution. The army wants to keep the country in a state of mind just short of war; and so Kashmir gives sanction to the military’s permanent dominance over every other institution. Civilian leadership is not allowed to challenge this basic, written-in-stone rule. Where and when needed, fanatical religious groups – Deobandi earlier and Barelvi later – are to be cultivated and used as per the need of the moment.

Even with Project Imran’s failure, the army’s thinking is much as before: those “bloody civilians” will make a mess of things if given too much latitude, and so the army sees itself remaining the final guardian of Pakistan’s “national interest”.

What triggered attacks on military installations?

A broader sense of frustration among the masses due to the economic crisis was surely part of the reason for the May 9 protests and ransacking of military installations. With a single naan costing 18+ Rs. and petrol hovering around 280 Rs. per liter, there would surely be anger at those at the top. But that’s not a good enough explanation for such extreme actions. There is also a strong sense of betrayal. Let’s remember that the vandalisation of the corps commander’s house happened in Lahore where every third street is named after some war hero. The PTI protesters were venting anger at the fact that the army had now turned against the greatest and most wonderful of their heroes, i.e. their party’s leader.

But this is still not the full explanation. Normally a sensible person does not go even near an army or ISI installation. One knows that their visible fortifications are supplemented with hidden surveillance cameras – and possibly snipers as well. So how did the rioters manage to pick up so much courage? Why was there no resistance? Could it be that there were people inside who had assured them of their cooperation? Many questions remain.

Drawing parallels with 1971

Imran Khan recently drew equivalence between the establishment’s treatment of PTI and atrocities committed against the people of East Pakistan in the lead up to the creation of Bangladesh. Following this, his supporters on social media have been pushing the narrative that PTI is being treated the way Awami League and its supporters were treated by the military in the 1970s. I wonder why it took Imran Khan 50 years to realize that East Pakistan had been wronged by West Pakistan. Never before had he made any such mention. Drawing parallels with 1971 couldn’t be more absurd. The Bengalis were not just against being ruled by the army but also by the entire political elite of West Pakistan. They were victims of ethnic prejudice by virtue of being shorter and darker. Their denigration started in 1948 with Mr. Jinnah seeking to impose Urdu upon Bengalis during his very first post-partition visit to Dacca. That went on with Bengalis becoming second-class citizens in their own land. Is Mr. Khan saying he and his supporters are being treated like Bengalis? There can’t be anything more absurd.

That Khan should attempt to equate the severity of the present repression with that of 1971 is even more nonsensical. Let’s remember that there were millions of Bengalis who fled to India, and that mass rape was used as a weapon of war. The infamous General Tikka Khan is on record of saying “hum in haramzadon ki nasl badl daengay” (We will alter the race of these bastards). And let’s not forget that the students of Dacca University were machine gunned while sleeping in their hostels. That’s not even remotely connected with the present.

Mobs as a form of political expression

There are basically only two ways by which any conflict can be handled. The first is by trying to outshout your opponent or, if that does not work, by using fists and then guns. The second is through exercise of reason, understanding your opponent’s position, and then seeking to either win him over or defeat him through the force of logic. Unfortunately the upbringing and education of Pakistanis is strongly anti-logic, so PTI and PDM are equally illogical. Our heroes are those who lived by the sword, not those who lived by the pen. Mohammed bin Qasim and Mahmood Ghazni are hugely admired but Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Rushd are barely known. Imran Khan idolizes Ertugrul, remember?

That mobs have become an important form of political expression is proof of how faith overpowers reason within our culture. In the present case it is not religious craziness but, rather, it is faith in Imran Khan as the messiah who will deliver Pakistan from every evil.

Justice is the right of all humans, and PTI rioters should be tried as per rules of the criminal justice system. Trying civilians in a military court violates the basic principles of justice. Instead, they must be allowed to defend themselves in a fair, transparent trial with access to their legal counsels.

Pervez Hoodbhoy

The author is an Islamabad-based physicist and writer

The post Dismantling Of PTI And Lessons Unlearned appeared first on Dissent Today.

Haq Do Tehreek (HDT)  is a protest movement against the government with issues comprising illegal trawling in Gwadar’s water, a high number of security checkpoints, and trade on the Pak-Iran border among others.

Rehman was arrested from outside a Gwadar court where he had appeared for a case related to killing of a policeman in January.

Several charges were brought up against Rehman after talks between the HDT’s leaders and the military commanders in Balochistan failed over the protest demonstrations organised by the movement demanding basic rights.

Rehman had had 19 cases related to vandalism and other offenses registered against him, but was later granted bail by a sessions court in Gwadar in all cases, except one related to the killing of a policeman, during one of the protest demonstrations organised by the HDT.

In yesterday’s hearing on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan’s plea against his arrest from the premises of Islamabad High Court, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial declared the arrest “illegal” and questioned how can a person be arrested from a court’s premises.

News Desk

dissenttoday.net

The post Imran Khan Got Relief But Gwadar’s Hidayatur Rehman Is In Jail For 3 Months After Being Arrested From Court Premises appeared first on Dissent Today.

My vision of Pakistan rests on my vision for human dignity. It is not a mere slogan of all lives being important, or the strange mixture of ideology, incorrect history and political expediency that is taught in our curriculum – one that I was also exposed to during my education in Pakistan. What Pakistan needs is a new social contract that puts human dignity at the core of our values, our policies and our progress. Let me illustrate where we stand with a few examples, and how we ought to change things.

Many households, including the one that I grew up in, employed domestic help. Growing up I thought it was normal that there was no contract formalizing their employment. No discussion of the number of hours that a person would work, no idea of overtime, no boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, and no rights of the worker against abuse. I never saw any physical abuse at my home, but there were many days when the person working in our kitchen would work from well before sunrise to late at night without any real break.

Their demand for leaves was often treated with disdain. There were other households among our social circle where children were routinely employed. Many households in my neighborhood where I grew up, still have children workers. Not all children who are employed as domestic labor are treated well. We often hear reports of violence against child workers, but these incidents go unnoticed.

I am quite certain that the abuse is much more widespread than what reaches the media. Worse, despite the horrifying stories, little structural changes are implemented. On any given day, in the corner of an elite restaurant, we will find maids who will be looking at all the food they can never have while tending to children of the rich.

We have never really priortized human dignity, and this is why the country finds itself in this economic crisis. How we conduct ourselves at our homes, where we exploit the labor, refuse to give them their rights and disregard human dignity is exactly how policymakers act at the national level. This behavior at the national level is often described as elite capture, rent seeking, or exploitation by the powerful because they can get away with it. Our behavior at the micro level captures a similar situation.

The issue of mistreatment of domestic help is just one of the many examples where human dignity does not matter. Lack of human dignity is visible for everyone in our public hospitals and in our courts, where the poor and the weak are considered sub-human. Just as we see a complete disregard for human dignity at the individual or the household level, we see a similar set of sentiments at the very top of our political leadership.

In the not too distant past we have had the President of the country publicly say that women in Pakistan get raped so they can get a foreign visa. A Prime Minister told a grieving minority community that by asking for investigation for a massacre of the community, they were “blackmailing” him. These statements, in many other parts of the world, would have led to swift resignations, but empathy for the weak and a commitment to human dignity is not a required part of the job for our leaders.

The lack of basic respect, and insurmountable barriers to a dignified life, force many to seek a better life abroad. A recent survey conducted by Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) showed that more than a third of the country would like to leave Pakistan if they could. While economic outlook was the first reason why people wanted to leave, the second biggest reason was a chance at a dignified living.

This lack of dignity – or any chance of having one in the near future – forces people to take extraordinary risks. In February 2023, a ship carrying migrants who wanted to reach Europe was met with tragedy near the southern coast of Italy. At least 67 people died, and many are still missing. Among those who died was a Pakistani national hockey player, Shahida Raza. Shahida belonged to the minority Hazara community, a group that has seen consistent violence against them by sectarian militants.

Shahida’s family, while confirming her death, told reporters that she wanted a better life for herself and her disabled son. There was no chance for that in Pakistan. Shahida’s story is heartbreaking, but also a reminder that dignity remains out of reach for even those who represent the nation at the global stage.

While there is no rapid solution to address these issues, I do believe that we can start with a three-pronged approach. These three interconnected and mutually dependent dimensions are based on laws (and implementation of those laws), awareness, and education. I am a strong believer in a systems level approach (as opposed to a reductionist or a siloed approach). And while these approaches may be less likely to succeed in silos, they can be more effective when viewed as a collective.

First, we need stronger legal protection for the rights of the weak and the socio-economically marginalized groups in society. We need laws that put human dignity as the foundation of a fair and inclusive society. That is to say that we need more than mere workshops by the ministry of human rights. We need actual laws that protect and preserve the dignity of every person. This, I realize, is not going to be easy. Efforts in the past on issues such as child marriage, or other human rights bills, have failed miserably for a variety of reasons.

Arguments have been made in the name of ideology, customs or “way of life” to derail legitimate efforts to safeguard the rights of the people. Those who demand representation, or speak up against ending injustice or discrimination are often termed as “westernized” or “traitors” working against the moral fabric of society.

Many activists face the real risk of personal harm to themselves or their loved ones. Imagining a situation where rights of domestic help are protected with contracts, or where we demand a greater representation of all sectors of society in academic and state institutions, is going to be met with stiff resistance. Similarly, there is good reason to worry that even existing laws that provide access to services, or protect against injustice, are rarely implemented fairly. Routinely, the custodians of the law (including legislators, members of judiciary or law enforcement agencies) themselves are the worst offenders.

But failure in the past should not be the reason for inaction in the present. There is no question that the law either does not exist to protect human dignity, or if there is one, it remains out of bounds for many. I would therefore argue that the way to tackle the current status quo is to couple efforts in providing a legal framework with the other two pillars: awareness and education.
Let us first examine the awareness argument. The modern interconnected world has given societies and individuals an opportunity to learn and reflect in light of what may be going on elsewhere. Pakistan is no exception. There is an increased awareness about universal values of justice, equity and human dignity, combined with access to social media. While the overall progress in the country has been slow, we do notice an intergenerational change. Communities that were historically isolated now have more people who have been exposed to ideas beyond their own community.

Pakistan needs a new social contract that puts human dignity at the core of our values, policies and progress. We have never really priortized human dignity, and this is part of the reason why the country finds itself in this economic crisis.

We note that even in parts of the society that have remained disconnected from centers of learning and engagement, some members of the next generation are challenging the older customs and arguing for increased education and basic services. Evils of private jails, torture, harassment, and other forms of injustice that have gone on for generations are being challenged from within the families and communities of the perpetrators as well. With this increased awareness, there is increased pressure that the historic practices can no longer continue. What is therefore needed is the continuation of this movement, and the most robust way of sustaining that momentum is through education.

Much has been written and discussed about curriculum reform at the primary and the secondary level. The debate around the Single National Curriculum (SNC) is charged and polarized. But the core argument in favour of a single national curriculum is not to create a sense of empathy, give rights to those who are systematically denied their rights, or to create a national discourse on human dignity. Instead, it is to create a level playing field for all students. There are, of course, legitimate concerns about the quality of instructors, the physical state of the schools, bringing the bar low, and the interference of groups with strong ideological views.

Provinces, in particular Sindh, have raised objections to the single national curriculum effort and have resisted implementing it. While I strongly believe in improving our curriculum, I do not think that SNC would bring a new social contract. I am not arguing that we should give up on improving our curriculum at the primary and the secondary level, but a more profound impact in the short term will come through changes at the higher education level.

I say this for two reasons: first, our universities (especially public universities), despite their many challenges, are still diverse places with students representing many geographic and socio-economic sectors of the society. Discussion and debate about complex social issues, in these diverse environments – both within and outside the classrooms – can lead to awareness, understanding and action. This is unlikely to happen at secondary or primary schools.

Second, university students simply by virtue of the stage in their lives are more likely to participate in civic action. Yet, for this to happen the university structure and our approach to higher education needs to be reimagined. We need to break the silos of our education model. For one, we need a stronger presence of humanities and social sciences in our higher education core. The notion that our scientists and engineers need to only study technical material along with a poorly taught course on English and insipid courses on Pakistan studies is as naïve as it is dangerous. There is a real danger when our students do not get exposure to ideas that come from exposure to history, philosophy, literature and other areas of humanities and social sciences.

Pakistan’s complex social problems require not just scholars in social sciences and humanities, but also doctors, engineers, scientists, economists and technical experts who understand what it takes to build a just, equitable and kind society. That understanding requires serious self-reflection, an analysis of who we are as a people, and a deeper sense of empathy. No society is perfect, but there are plenty where the poor are not considered sub-human, where victims of violence can seek justice without being told that they are blackmailing the state, and where women can march to seek their rights without having to live in a state of permanent fear. Our students need to be exposed to, and debate, the values that underpin such societies. They need to reflect on their own literature and philosophy, and learn from the ideas from outside. They do not need to import all ideas, but having no exposure to them should not be acceptable.

We also need to make sure that our universities do not shut their doors to those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. A diverse student body is absolutely essential for the university to play its role in creating a fairer society. A more inclusive university requires rethinking about the structure of fees, and having a tiered system that is based on individual capacity to pay. Those who can afford to pay more, should pay more and for those who are financially stressed, should have the ability to attend university despite their modest means. This is particularly true for our professional engineering and medical universities, where the state subsidizes education for everyone, including those who may be affluent and can pay more. As a result, the universities often remain in a financially precarious state, and are unable to improve their infrastructure or pay their employees.

If we are to recreate our social contract, universities need to recognize both the opportunity they offer and their responsibilities. They need to appreciate that few places in society can shape the future. They also need to recognize that this privilege comes with a huge responsibility. The universities should not be the place to indoctrinate students with one set of ideas or another, but a place where complex and controversial issues can be discussed without fear or serious repercussions.

Our universities, by and large, have failed in this effort. Topics from forced disappearances to the 1971 war have remained out of bounds. Religion, history, ethnic tensions and a robust analysis of corruption within the military and judiciary cannot be discussed without a real risk to the institution. A just society – with human dignity at its core – cannot be created or function with a complete disregard of its history.

Enabling environment in the universities is unlikely to survive on its own – and that is why this aspect of the vision will need support from the other two dimensions, of law that protects both speech and against harassment for those who disagree with the state, and an awareness that demands that societies need discussion, debate and dissent.

Too often, the discussion about the future of society is focused on fiscal policies, imports and exports, physical infrastructure and means of production and consumption. Similarly, many have been talking about who gets the biggest portion of the budget and why. All of that is important and critical – but financial prosperity and reform in various sectors have to be grounded in a view that all human lives are equally important and that human dignity is and must remain at the foundation of our policies.

Just because the GDP of a country rises sharply does not automatically mean that it becomes a place where human dignity is prioritized, or where people can expect fair treatment across the board. My vision for Pakistan is not based on some arbitrary number – where we take pride on whether we are first on a particular list or within the top 10 of another. My vision is based on the simple notion that everyone in the country is treated with equality, dignity and fundamental respect.

Muhammad Hamid Zaman

The writer is the Director of the Center on Forced Displacement, and a Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Global Health, at Boston University

The post Make Human Dignity The Foundation Of Policymaking appeared first on Dissent Today.

Pakistan once again finds itself in a very hard economic situation, but the gravity of the present crisis is far more serious than any we have seen so far. High fiscal deficits, coupled with overspending over the last decade, have pushed Pakistan into a situation where lenders are unwilling to bail us out unless we make serious and consistent efforts towards fundamental economic reforms. In this article, I focus on some tax policy issues and how we should address these challenges.

Historically, Pakistan inherited a typical British tax collection structure which relied heavily on indirect taxes, collected at import (custom duties) or production stages (excise duties), and income tax collected without self-assessment. From 1996-2001, Pakistan undertook a series of tax reforms which shifted the system to a more “modern” self-assessment-based system. This change necessitated rapid automation and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has done exceptionally well in terms of computerisation compared to many other developing countries. It did get some immediate dividends and tax to GDP ratio increased from 9.8 per cent in 2013 to 13.0 per cent in 2018 before regressing back again.
Despite adopting best tax practices, our tax to GDP ratio has barely managed to stay above 10 per cent against a suggested 15-17% given our spending and debt servicing commitments. Why does this anomaly exist? If we have a reasonable tax collection agency, then what ails us and where do we fail? The answer lies in understanding both administrative and policy measures that we need to consider.

On the administrative side, the biggest issue is to resolve the trade-off between ease of doing business, administrative cost and controlling evasion. For example, in 2005, FBR deregistered thousands of small VAT (called sales tax in Pakistan) registered firms because they paid a small amount of net taxes but required high administrative costs. Many of these firms were registered during the 2000-2001 FBR survey drive which was meant to document the economy. Ironically, both steps were taken under the same political regime. What it essentially did was to use extensive administrative resources for nearly half a decade only to let everyone go.

Five years later around 2010, once again all the focus came back on broadening of tax base. The most important source of ensuring tax compliance and enforcement in the present system is audit. While audits can unearth substantial evasion, most cases do not translate to any substantial recovery because of various factors. Cases go in litigation where they are time constrained, and fill the first or second appellate stage but in later stages, there is no time limit on judicial authority for deciding the case. Even when the case is decided against a taxpayer, they may still go to courts to stop recovery action. This has created a perception among taxpayers that they can get away with anything even when the case against them is very solid. There is not much tax authorities can do here.

But the real consequence of this increasingly slow judicial process is that recoveries in most domestic taxes have fallen to 5 per cent on average.The damage this does to the deterrence value of FBR and its tax collection initiatives should not be underestimated in a tax system based on self-assessment. Considering the revenue pressure that FBR faces each year, it has to make up for this loss and the response is often the introduction of arbitrary taxes in the forms of minimum, final, turnover, withholding taxes etc. In this scenario, FBR is left with very limited measures to increase taxes such as increasing the tax rates. But these are not good policy measures.
Tax policy is based on four principles: (1) Adequate Revenue (2) Vertical and Horizontal Equity (3) Economic Efficiency (4) Low administrative and compliance costs. Adequate revenue principle means that tax rate and base should be big enough to collect adequate taxes. While Pakistan has high tax rates, its tax base needs expansion. Retailers and small businesses largely remain out of the tax net, often paying a small turnover tax which is hardly verifiable through any third party. Recent POS retail receipts system is a good initiative to bring these retailers into the tax net.

Agriculture sector is another example of an untapped tax base. The policy initiatives to tap the tax base in the informal economy need long term commitment from political stakeholders that they would not compromise the national economy to appease their political base. Pakistan’s present tax structure performs poorly against the equity principle. Horizontal equity demands that people who have the same income pay the same taxes. Vertical equity requires more proportional payment from high earners than low earners. Over reliance on indirect taxes and withholding taxes implies that low-income people who spend most of their income on basic consumption goods end up paying proportionally more than higher income persons.

Similarly, when some people pay their taxes such as salaried persons and similar income people in self-employment or informal sectors do not, then equity is compromised. Over the last decade, Pakistan has established some good social protection programs like BISP or Ehsaas to mitigate poverty and make its tax and transfer system less regressive. But this certainly is not enough because most middle-income households are left out of these programs.
To increase equity in our tax system, we should follow the simple principle of taxing inelastic but non-essential goods at a higher rate. Recent extra levies on cigarettes and luxury goods are a right step in this direction. However, we need to do more to figure out ways to tax income in exempt and informal sectors. In terms of administrative and compliance costs, Pakistan is not very different from other developing countries because it follows a taxation system which is similar to other developing countries. However, the basic issue that critically ails our tax and transfer system is lack of economic efficiency.

Economic efficiency implies progressive taxation of income, very high taxes on economic rents, consumption taxes with a transfer program that makes them less regressive, and a competitive business environment. Clearly, we have a tax system which fails to achieve these basic goals. Most corporate taxes come through alternative minimum taxes based on turnover instead of profits. But we failed to sign OECD’s Pillar 2 global minimum tax, which is a minimum tax on profits of corporations with top up tax below 15% going to the host country, in this case Pakistan. Seemingly, there is no valid reason for not doing it and 140 countries have joined it. An immediate step could be to join these initiatives which now have a stronger chance of being implemented than ever before.

On the personal taxes front, we may begin with national insurance taxes. They can be a good instrument of bringing informal sector employment to the formal sector. They can also assure long term social protection commitment to a bulging young population. Because these taxes are paid by both employers and employees, they may pressure informal employers to pay extra and hence increase the burden on the informal sector. At the same time, they can make formal sector employers contribute more to the welfare of their workers. Because these taxes are tied to individual transfers in the future, they also make the system more progressive.

The most important element of modern tax policy is to make the business environment economically neutral or competitive. It means that taxes should not distort choices of individuals and firms. Tax on real income or profit is economically neutral provided that it is not easy to evade. Unfortunately, tax evasion for firms operating under the profit tax regime is as high as 70%. This necessitates alternative minimum turnover based taxes. It preserves government revenue by taxing those who may be in a loss at the cost of sparing those who made windfall profits.
Audits do not translate into recoveries but even if they did, firms resort to excessive profit shifting strategies which shifts their profits to offshore tax havens. This puts smaller and new firms at a disadvantage –resulting in loss of productivity, innovation, and competition. Similarly, high evasion in indirect taxes allows evaders to lower their prices and drive honest businesses out of the market. Ease of doing business and ease of doing evasion cannot go together. This phenomenon is costing billions of rupees in lost revenues and discourages compliance. Seemingly, it is a vicious circle. So where do we start?

First, we must decide whether we need a territorial jurisdiction system or not. Territorial jurisdiction system in tax administration has its merits but sadly its demerits in Pakistan are now too grave to ignore. If we switch to a non-territorial system, it will take away unnecessary pressure on the revenue target which, ironically, is almost always achieved. We can then focus on more systemic issues and insulate our tax machinery from social pressures and corrupt practices that come with having a jurisdiction based on geographical area. It may also help in reducing the size of tax administration and make it more efficient. In countries like the UK and USA, field offices are small and only for providing basic services to taxpayers while substantial revenue related work is handled on a functional basis.

Second, we should introduce a monetary reward system for the workforce based on the amount recovered. Presently, recovery from defaulters does not translate into any benefit for those who made efforts to recover the amount. A better system to recover taxes from defaulting firms should be made, a system which makes recovery a priority is essential to a self-assessment-based system. Third, we should exercise due diligence and care in new registrations of firms. Many VAT firms turn out to be mere invoice mills and do not do any real business. Without compromising ease of doing business principle, we can allow a provisional registration online and make the permanent registration contingent on physical verifications and meeting certain other criteria.

Fourth, personal income tax return filers do not receive their refunds automatically. If the return is accepted automatically then refund payment should also follow especially when it is small and straight forward verifiable. It would encourage people to file returns. Short term focus on revenue figures results in long delays and complex refund procedures.

Once we have a more focused system in place, then we can go for increasing the tax base. Presently, a 3% further tax is levied on any supplies made to the informal sector by non-retailers over and above the standard sales tax rate of 18%. Even this extra turnover tax has failed to dent the informal sector. Government should go a step further and impose another 3% as withholding tax. It might seem high but why should we not tax the informal sector at a higher rate? We are already imposing higher taxes on non-filers which should also be the case here.

Another right step would be to map all business locations. Businesses, whether they are required to be registered or not under tax laws, should still have a firm registration number linked to a particular verifiable postal address. Operating any business without such registration should be unlawful. This would help in documenting the economy and ensure that we have a record of people who are working in these small businesses. It would be helpful in implementing a national insurance system which can account for the national workforce. Exporters are currently taxed at 1% of their turnover. It should be converted into a minimum tax from final tax so that those exporters who are earning large profits should pay their due share of taxes.

In short, there are some important measures that we can take to streamline our tax system and generate more revenues from the appropriate base. These measures are not exhaustive and are meant to provide a way forward for developing the country in a global competitive environment.

Jawad Shah

The writer is a Research Fellow in Economics at Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation, Said Business School. He is also a civil servant who is affiliated with the Federal Board of Revenue, Pakistan for two decades. His recent research focus is taxation in developing countries. 

The post What Ails Pakistan’s Tax System? appeared first on Dissent Today.