DAWN Editorials 10th September 2026

Following through

ECONOMIC policymaking requires private-sector buy-in to succeed. Yet our policymakers have rarely sought it without political prodding from the top. Even when they do, their instinct is to bury, ignore or delay implementing the recommendations.

That is precisely why the prime minister deserves credit for maintaining periodic contact with the business community. But such interactions should deliver results, not merely generate positive headlines. Still, progress is visible, though the pace remains slow. The super tax has been withdrawn, and some business costs have eased. The government also cites Rs800bn recovered through stronger enforcement over the past year without imposing new taxes on compliant businesses. That is a meaningful gain, but sustaining it demands deeper institutional reform.

The PM’s view that growth must become export-led is correct. Pakistan’s domestic-demand-driven expansions follow a familiar pattern: they last for a while but then create external imbalances and return the country to stabilisation programmes. But intent is not enough. Predictable policies, competitively priced energy, long-term financing, reliable logistics and a regulatory environment that does not punish investment are needed.

Currently, long-term investment is scarce and competitiveness continues to erode. Businessmen have pointed this out to the PM and his economic team several times during consultations. The PM and his team agree, but there is no follow-through. There is no record of which commitments from previous meetings were fulfilled. That pattern is why business confidence in these consultations continues to diminish even as the meetings go on.

The meetings have value in principle. They bring to the government’s attention the obstacles businesses actually face and can build confidence in the process. In practice, however, they tend to become crowded affairs where a long list of grievances is aired without clear priorities or a mechanism to track what happens next. That must change. Future sessions should focus on specific reforms, with each action assigned to a ministry, given a deadline and measurable target, and made the responsibility of an identifiable official.

The Prime Minister’s Office should directly oversee this process. A directive issued in a meeting room is not policy until it is recorded, assigned and pursued to completion. Too much of what is said in these forums disappears once the meeting ends. Public promises and announcements have never been in short supply — from this government or its predecessors. What has been missing is a clear and stable policy regime that allows businesses to plan and invest for the long term.

Whether these consultations change that is the only test that matters. The dialogue channel the PM has established is worth keeping open. But its purpose must now shift from reassurance and the resolution of individual grievances to reforms that change the operating environment itself.

Published in Dawn, September 10th, 2026

Loose talk

OVER the weekend, Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz made a statement at a public event that caused quite a stir. Striking a parochial note unbecoming of a public representative, the CM remarked that the threat to Punjab is “less from neighbouring countries and more from my neighbouring provinces”. For a political leader to take such an exclusivist position — one that sits uneasily alongside any aspiration to national leadership — is ill-advised. Referring to the bordering provinces, the CM said: “Terrorism enters Punjab from there. Everyone has their eyes on Punjab, but, thank God, Punjab remains safe. The kind of threats we face come from all our provincial borders.” She appeared to be contrasting her province’s ‘better management’ of law and order, militancy and related challenges with the crises other provinces continue to face. The Punjab information minister later sought to clarify that the CM was merely referring to the movement of terrorists across borders and never intended to target any ethnic community or province. Still, several political leaders took exception to the insinuation that terrorism is not Punjab’s problem but one for the other provinces to deal with.

Opposition parties denounced the remarks as insulting, divisive and damaging to national unity. Many saw them as portraying KP and Balochistan as sources of terrorism rather than as long-suffering victims of it. That anger should be acknowledged. Both provinces have borne the brunt of terrorism, making countless sacrifices for decades. It is irresponsible to suggest, no matter how obliquely, that the pain they have suffered is theirs alone to bear. Terrorism and militancy represent a breakdown of the social contract — one that is simply more visible on the peripheries than in the heartland. Just because the heartland is comparatively stable does not mean it has no responsibility towards the rest of the federation. There is no place for casual provincialism in a society as heterogeneous as Pakistan. Leaders who ‘other-ise’ their opponents to capitalise on social prejudices are sowing the seeds for even greater instability. They believe this will solidify their legitimacy in the eyes of their constituents and consequently strengthen their hold on power. Instead, it will fracture society further and make it much more ungovernable. There is a reason the Quaid laid so much stress on unity. That emphasis must be reflected on.

Published in Dawn, September 10th, 2026

Wrong target

THERE is a difference between enforcing immigration law and punishing students for the passport they carry. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council’s decision to bar Afghan nationals from medical and dental admissions this session, while requiring those already enrolled to return home, crosses that line. The ostensible rationale is not difficult to discern. Relations with Kabul are badly strained and Pakistan is pressing ahead with its repatriation drive. The government has the right to regulate entry, residence and national security. But none of that explains why students studying through recognised institutions, particularly those with valid documentation, should have their education abruptly terminated. Indeed, the Foreign Office says visa-extension applications from Afghan students continue to be processed under existing rules, making the blanket nature of the PMDC directive even harder to defend.

For many Afghan students, return can amount to the destruction of an educational future. Afghanistan’s higher-education system is in tatters, while the Taliban’s restrictions have made prospects especially bleak for women. Girls remain barred from secondary school and women from university, and female medical education has also been suspended. To send students back into such an environment after they have secured places, paid fees and completed years of study is cruel. Pakistan’s anger over cross-border terrorism and Kabul’s failure to act against terrorist sanctuaries is justified. But students are not the Taliban government, nor should they be made instruments of bilateral pressure. At minimum, those legally enrolled should be allowed to complete their degrees, while new admissions can be reviewed under transparent visa and security rules. Pakistan has sheltered generations of Afghans, often at considerable cost. That history should not now end in a policy that mistakes vulnerability for culpability. Security policy can be firm without becoming indiscriminate. The state must withdraw this measure.

Published in Dawn, September 10th, 2026