Singled out
WHENEVER elections take place, the Ahmadi community is reminded of their ‘otherness’ through the existence of a separate voters’ list for the group. Because of this unfortunate reality, the community has for decades boycotted elections and will also stay away from next week’s exercise. It is sad that the state has created such conditions that a large number of its minority citizens will not be able to exercise their right to franchise. As a spokesman for the community told this paper, such behaviour “contravenes both the Constitution and the joint electorate system”. The issue is, of course, part of the larger pattern of discrimination the community faces in both the public and private spheres.
Separate electorates were created during Gen Zia’s dictatorship. It was another military man — Gen Musharraf — who restored the joint electorate during his time in power, yet the late strongman was pressured to keep Ahmadis separate, which is the way things stand today. Calls by the community to change the election laws have failed to get a satisfactory response. The ECP, as well as whichever government is in power, needs to be asked why the community is identified separately, when all other non-Muslim groups are part of the general voters’ list. It raises serious questions about an entire community’s disenfranchisement. What is equally troubling is that a separate voters’ list — containing sensitive personal information — exposes the group to grave danger, as extremists can easily identify members of the community from this document. Over the past many decades, the group’s places of worship have been attacked, while its members have been murdered. There exist outfits in this country that dedicate all their time and energies to persecuting this particular community. In such a perilous environment, if the state cannot guarantee the community’s right to participate in the polls, the least it can do is to not expose them to further danger through the separate voters’ list.
Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2024
Saving lives
THE recent decision by the federal cabinet to raise the prices of 146 life-saving medicines is a significant — albeit contentious — step in addressing the long-standing drug pricing conundrum. The move, while necessary to counter the rising costs of raw materials and to prevent shortages, raises concerns about accessibility for the average consumer. The situation calls for a delicate balance between the financial viability of pharmaceuticals and the affordability of essential drugs for the public. The pharma industry is grappling with increased production costs due to global market trends and the rupee’s devaluation. These factors have made the production of certain medicines financially unfeasible, leading to shortages and forcing consumers to turn to the black market or reduce their dosages, as highlighted previously in these pages. Prior to the decision, the health ministry attempted a balanced solution, proposing incentives to the industry instead to mitigate the financial burden on consumers, credible sources within the ministry say. After several rounds of talks, a price rise became inevitable.
However, it is crucial to recognise that this may not be the most equitable solution. The government must consider implementing targeted subsidies for life-saving medicines. This would ensure that critical drugs remain affordable, particularly for low-income segments, while allowing pharmaceuticals to cover their increased production costs. The government should also explore narrowing the range of drugs subject to price rises, excluding those that have no alternatives or are essential for treating life-threatening conditions. This selective increase, combined with subsidies, could mitigate the consumers’ burden. Meanwhile, the government must foster an environment conducive to the medicine industry’s growth. Simplifying the regulatory framework, ensuring quicker clearance of imported raw materials, and providing fiscal incentives — as the ministry seeks to do — can help the industry thrive while keeping prices in check. There is a need for innovative solutions, such as imposing levies on pharmaceuticals’ turnover to fund the procurement of drugs for public-sector hospitals so that the most vulnerable receive necessary medicines free of cost. While the price increase is an understandable response to the current economic climate, it is imperative that a more nuanced approach is employed. The goal should be a healthcare system where life-saving medicines are accessible and affordable to all, irrespective of their economic standing.
Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2024
‘Tricky minds’
THE cipher case judgement, released on Thursday, offers interesting insights into a case conducted in jail and largely away from public view.
The extraordinary fervour with which this trial had been pursued by the state had been well-established ever since the special court conducting it was rebuked twice by the Islamabad High Court over serious irregularities in the proceedings.
Despite a third chance, however, the court was widely criticised for having fallen well short of what would be considered a clean and fair trial.
The judgement now makes clear that former prime minister Imran Khan and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi were punished not just for their alleged wrongs but also for what the presiding judge described as their “tricky minds” and “tricky acts”.
There is extensive justification in the judgement for why the defendants were denied some of their trial rights — a matter that had caused much controversy when case hearings were abruptly concluded on Monday.
The judgement blames the defendants for trying to prolong the proceedings and claims they refused to defend themselves. The judge reasons they did so in order to weaken the court’s verdict so it would be struck down in appeal.
In doing so, the entire burden of the irregularities reported in the conduct of the case seems to have been shifted onto the defendants. Importantly, the biggest ‘crime’ the two have been punished for seems insufficiently substantiated.
The court finds the two guilty of “compromising the security of the state and the communications methods used by Pakistan’s foreign missions”. However, the Foreign Office has affirmed this week that its communication systems have been audited and are safe and protected. If so, what exactly are the two guilty of?
Furthermore, the question of whether it is the prime minister’s prerogative to make public any privileged information has not been addressed. Instead, the perceived harm to Pakistan’s relations with the US and foreign lenders due to the decision to go public with the cipher’s contents seems to have been given much more precedence than the fact that this decision was made by Pakistan’s chief executive at the time.
There is no doubt that Mr Khan and Mr Qureshi massively overstepped by deciding to use a diplomatic matter as a political shield. The fact that Mr Khan misplaced his copy of the cipher is also a grave concern.
However, neither of these, on its own, seems like reason enough to justify punishing two senior decision-makers so harshly. Pakistan’s weak international standing is a result of years of bad policies and irresponsible actions.
Without a doubt, the cipher stunt worsened Pakistan’s ties with a major trading partner and global power. However, it is not the sole reason for our soured diplomatic ties with the US.
Published in Dawn, February 3rd, 2024