The Nation Editorials 26th August 2026

Irrelevant Debates

The molehill has effectively been turned into a mountain, and a toxic one at that. Imran Khan’s health has dominated the news cycle for days, consuming reams of newspaper space and hours of television debate. Now, inevitably, it has entered the Senate.

The result has been predictable. The opposition accuses the government of defying the Supreme Court and playing politics with Imran Khan’s health. The government insists it has complied with the order within the constraints of security and that the matter remains before the courts. Each side seeks to extract maximum political capital from the controversy, while the underlying issue becomes more acrimonious with every exchange.

Sherry condemns killing of five labourers in Balochistan
But this is simply not what the Senate should be spending its time on.

Pakistan is a complex country facing serious legislative, economic, administrative and security challenges. The upper house exists to deliberate on matters of national importance, scrutinise legislation and represent the federation. Whether one prisoner should have been taken to one hospital rather than another is ultimately a matter for the courts, prison authorities, medical professionals and the family concerned.

That does not absolve the government of responsibility. In fact, it should recognise that its handling of the issue has allowed a relatively straightforward matter to become a national political controversy. As such, it is now responsible for fixing it too. The government should do everything within its power to put this dispute to rest.

US pauses visa appointments amid immigration crackdown
Imran Khan’s health deserves proper medical attention and lawful treatment. What it does not deserve is to become an endless parliamentary spectacle.

The Senate has far more important work to do. Pakistan cannot afford for its legislature to remain trapped in yet another political quarrel that belongs elsewhere.

NA Theatrics

If the Senate has appeared increasingly redundant in recent days, the National Assembly is not far behind. Instead of functioning as the country’s primary legislative chamber, it has too often become a stage for political theatre, walkouts, point-scoring and carefully crafted barbs designed more for television clips than parliamentary record.

The most immediate problem is quorum. With the opposition largely disengaged and relations between the PML-N and PPP strained, the latter has discovered just how much leverage attendance gives it. Its blunt message, “No PPP, no quorum”, captures the problem perfectly. If it chooses, a coalition partner can effectively halt proceedings simply by staying away.

Sherry condemns killing of five labourers in Balochistan
Political walkouts, however, are only part of the malaise. Daily attendance in the National Assembly remains woeful even when no organised boycott is under way. Too many elected representatives appear to treat the title of MNA as a feudal fief, a marker of prestige and influence, rather than an onerous public duty. Parliament is treated less like a workplace and more like somewhere members may attend when convenient.

This cannot continue.

If lawmakers expect civil servants, judges, soldiers, teachers and ordinary employees to meet attendance requirements, there is no reason elected representatives should be exempt. The government should introduce clear minimum attendance thresholds, backed by escalating penalties for persistent absence. These should begin with financial sanctions and, in extreme cases, extend to suspension and eventually the vacation of a seat, triggering a by-election.

US pauses visa appointments amid immigration crackdown
Such measures would require careful constitutional and legal design, but the principle is straightforward: parliamentary office must carry parliamentary responsibility.

The National Assembly cannot legislate, scrutinise government or represent constituencies when its benches are empty. Restoring its purpose begins with the most basic obligation of all: elected members must actually show up.

India’s Oppression

India’s worsening treatment of its religious and ethnic minorities can no longer be dismissed as a matter of subjective grievance or partisan criticism. The alarm is now being raised by international institutions themselves, with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination calling on New Delhi to address extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, racial profiling and violence against marginalised communities.

The committee’s concerns extend well beyond Muslims, though Bengali-speaking Muslims, Rohingya and other vulnerable groups remain prominent targets. Dalits, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and indigenous communities have also been identified as facing serious discrimination and abuse, including at the hands of law enforcement.

Sherry condemns killing of five labourers in Balochistan
This points towards a much broader and more dangerous trajectory.

Under the RSS-BJP political project, Hindutva has increasingly moved from ideological rhetoric into the machinery of the state and public life. Muslims may have been its traditional target, but a majoritarian system built around religious supremacy rarely confines itself to one minority. Once discrimination becomes politically acceptable, every group outside the dominant identity becomes vulnerable.

India’s own constitutional protections and democratic claims make this deterioration even more troubling. A state that presents itself as the world’s largest democracy cannot indefinitely brush aside repeated international concerns regarding hate speech, communal violence, discriminatory enforcement and abuses of vulnerable populations.

US pauses visa appointments amid immigration crackdown
The world, too, cannot continue treating India as an exception.

The EU and the US have long presented themselves as champions of human rights, often using diplomatic, financial and economic pressure to demand reforms elsewhere. If those principles are genuine, they must also be applied to India with the same seriousness.

Strategic partnerships and commercial interests cannot become excuses for selective morality. Human rights standards lose their meaning when they are enforced against weaker states but softened for powerful friends.