MQM hints at quitting coalition government
Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) chairman Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui has indicated that the party might soon separate from the ruling coalition, stating that the time for a final decision is drawing near.
He clarified that MQM-P is not issuing threats or ultimatums but is making a firm choice based on its political stance.
Speaking at the party's annual welfare event, Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui stated that MQM-P had previously left a government due to its "non-serious approach" and expressed frustration with the existing political system. "The system is not accepting us because we refuse to conform to it," he said.
He also recalled the party's history of social work, highlighting the role of Khidmat-e-Khalq Foundation (KKF), MQM-P's charitable arm. "For nearly 45 years, KKF has been serving the people. It was to meet this need that MQM was created," he said, emphasising the party's commitment to welfare beyond political affiliations.
Siddiqui reflected on the challenges MQM-P has faced over the years, recalling its struggles in the 1990s and the aftermath of the events of 22 August 2016, when the party distanced itself from its London-based founder. "People thought MQM would collapse, but we have not disintegrated—we have evolved," he asserted.
Khalid Siddiqui pointed out economic disparities in Karachi and Sindh, stating that despite Karachi being an economic hub, poverty persists in its surroundings. "This city supports the entire country, yet its residents suffer. Even in an affluent province, poverty has surrounded Karachi," he said.
He also highlighted MQM-P's ongoing role in relief efforts. "We have been providing ambulance services for five years, not just in Karachi but even in Peshawar," he noted, adding that aid distribution does not require government intervention but stability and security.
Siddiqui's remarks have intensified speculation about MQM-P's position within the ruling alliance. While he did not explicitly announce a departure, his comments indicate growing dissatisfaction. "The government is under pressure regarding our role. But one thing is clear—this system cannot function without us," he said.
He concluded by stressing that MQM-P's welfare efforts are for all Pakistanis, regardless of ethnicity or sect. "This city's streets tell its story; we don't need a press conference to prove our struggles," he remarked.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Resetting economic governance
We have lost count of experiments conducted to resolve challenges confronted by our economy. However, except interludes of relative stability, the economy has kept faltering with breathing space provided by IMF bailouts, rollovers by friendly countries and expatriate Pakistanis' remittances. While political disruptions and policy shocks contributed to the snowballing of the economic disorder, civil bureaucracy remained ill-equipped to deal with the decline. On their part, technocrats overtime fell in line with their employers in civil bureaucracy. Surprisingly, despite being the most relevant stakeholder the businessmen were not enabled to take centre stage to play substantive role in economic governance or to sway the policies to economy's favour. The corporate executives have been part of the Cabinet, but they lose their independent voice once they join the ruling club. Their recommendations are not incorporated in a way they would desire in the final decisions, legislations, and policies. Likewise, they are hardly taken on board on economic matters linked to strategic and foreign policy issues. Resultantly, the decisions pertaining to geopolitical dynamics are aligned more with political objectives than long-term economic benefits. An example of this approach is Pakistan's insignificant trade with its neighbouring countries. Issues and controversies that crop up every now and then between businessmen and the government indicate ineffectiveness of former's consultative role as well as their inability to wield real influence in matters having substantial impact on the economy. No wonder policymakers' chronic neglect of corporate sector's policy inputs has exacerbated economic deterioration. The economic governance status quo chose to disregard the counsels of the entrepreneurs, despite the fact that alongside the establishment and civil society businessmen have kept the country afloat in times of peace and national emergencies. As heads of organizations which create wealth, generate employment, deposit mammoth taxes, partner with government in social development and step forward in national upheavals, business leaders have a strong and legitimate right to be embedded into national economic decision-making as strategic partners. The concept of privatisation is premised on private sector's proven ability to better able to govern. This should also hold true in the case of national economic governance as the economy is led by entrepreneurs who should not merely be considered as business managers but as economic sages capable of coming up with viable strategies for economic recovery and tweaking these modalities all the way in their successful implementation. The economies flourish when they function as enterprise and who could be more suitable to run them in this manner than the businessmen. At the national level a civil-military hybrid format is in full throttle to plug in gaps in governance, official procedures, coordination, policy implementation and, above all, actualize difficult reforms. The unprecedentedly close civil-military liaison has come forward to deal with these complex tasks as existential challenge after the country was pulled back from the brink. This template is explicitly manifest in the form of enthusiastic and happy coordination between political and military leaderships, fruitful military diplomacy and institutional collaboration in the shape of Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC). While doubts surround the usefulness of the hybrid system in dealing with economic challenges, the businessmen continue to be on the blind spot of the government and the establishment. One only learns about business groups' separate interactions with the Prime Minister and the Chief of Army Staff (now Field Marshal). Why not institutionalize these meetings into an apex level consultative and decision-making platform. A tripartite civil-military-business model of economic governance could be created in which the corporate executives have a robust role in making recommendations with the understanding that these will be endorsed and implemented by the government. Corporate representatives may veto proposals which can adversely impact on the businesses and economic health. The implementation of policy recommendations may be monitored by the establishment after finding viable ways out of political expediencies. In the absence of such a body it took the government a long time before realizing to insulate the business community from National Accountability Bureau. The latest such organization is Federal Board of Revenue, which has run into controversies with the business community. The civil-military collaborative model, in the context of whole-of-government approach, provides a good ground to engage corporate leaders as the major players in economic revival. The suggested high level body could function as an expanded version of SIFC in a manner that political and military leaderships interact with eminent entrepreneurs to seek workable solutions of issues relating to regulations, taxes, energy pricing, monetary and fiscal policies, trade and investment, privatization, economic legislation, corporate laws, budgetary proposals, strategic issues linked to economy and above all the painful reforms. This triangular body, shielded from political disruptions and bureaucratic resistance, could operate independently for consistent and private-sector driven policies on the principle of economic pragmatism. The proposal might sound radical, but in extraordinary situations nations resort to non-traditional remedies. Since we have exhausted conventional governance mechanisms without achieving the desired outcome, the proposal to accord lead role to entrepreneurs as members of national economic team should be seen as a plausible measure with a sure promise of success. Pakistan has yet to fully come out of a precarious economic situation. The fragile economic scenario has been rendered more vulnerable by the Indian aggression and other multiple security threats. In these unusual circumstances, one key step must be to enlist business leaders, whom Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif hailed as national heroes, in economic governance to salvage the economy. Empowering local businessmen in national decision-making will also lead to a huge increase in the ease of doing business, presenting a strong stimulus for attracting foreign investment. In a write-up for a newspaper Ahsan Iqbal, Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Special Initiatives, stated that 'expansion of the private sector and devolution of multiple responsibilities to provinces have made policymaking a multi-actor exercise with rising complexity.' Implicit in this statement is the important role of business sector in proposing strategies and modalities to the government. The economic transformation plan of the government could take off provided, among other things, the business leaders are irreversibly co-opted by the government in economic governance and decision-making. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
10 hours ago
- Business Recorder
‘Economy to suffer if PTB dissolved'
LAHORE: Pakistan's economy could face a substantial loss of estimated Rs700 billion from the tobacco sector if the government proceeds with dissolving the Pakistan Tobacco Board (PTB) and transfers its regulatory authority to the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The tobacco industry is already reeling from the impact of illicit trade, which has cost the economy over Rs415 billion. The sector could also suffer an additional loss of over Rs300 billion in duties from the legal companies if regulatory control shifts from the federal government to the provincial level, sources said. It may be added that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remains the epicentre of Pakistan's illicit cigarette production, much of it operating under political protection. Transferring regulatory autonomy to provinces would weaken national policy consistency and open the door to manipulation by local interest groups. Moreover, tobacco remains a critical contributor to rural employment, national revenue, and export income. Timely and uniform policy action is essential to safeguard the interests of growers and maintain investor confidence in the sector. 'Devolving PTB would be a regulatory disaster,' said Osama Siddiqui, a macroeconomic analyst. 'Without a centralized authority, the already thriving illicit trade will spiral further out of control, crushing legitimate businesses and slashing government revenue,' he added. Siddiqui said that dismantling the PTB's federal structure would serve only the interests of illegal manufacturers and risk destabilizing a sector that plays a vital role in Pakistan's economy. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
10 hours ago
- Business Recorder
India's global test has arrived
The world must look very different to Narendra Modi today than it did just a few months ago. When Donald Trump roared back into the White House, the atmosphere in New Delhi was electric. A second Trump term, many assumed, would be a strategic jackpot. The personal chemistry between Modi and Trump from the first term had already become the stuff of political lore. India was riding high on the narrative of multipolar ascendancy – more friends, more influence, and more leverage than ever before. But fast forward to August, and that confidence has curdled into confusion. The Trump 2.0 honeymoon never took off. Instead, tariffs did. A sweeping 25 percent duty walloped Indian exports, and Trump signaled that tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors would follow – part of a broader trade escalation, not confined to India. And that wasn't even the sting. The real jolt came when Trump linked further penalties to India's continued purchase of Russian oil, accusing New Delhi of 'fueling the war machine' and threatening secondary sanctions. At the same time, Trump rolled out the red carpet for Pakistan's army chief, praised Islamabad's restraint, and even floated the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize – with the Pakistanis only too happy to oblige, making it official government policy to nominate him for it. For a government in New Delhi that had quietly started believing it could shape regional narratives unilaterally, this was not just undiplomatic; it was humiliating. Now Indian officials are scrambling — trying to salvage trade negotiations, sweetening export incentives, and exploring back-channel fixes. There's talk of reopening segments of the dairy market to the US and doubling down on digital trade concessions. But nothing about this feels strategic anymore. It's defensive, rushed, reactive. The same can be said about New Delhi's current posture in BRICS, where its balancing act between the west and Russia is growing more precarious by the day. Trump's campaign against Russian energy buyers has dragged India's non-aligned energy policy into the line of fire. And Moscow, watching the tension build, has not missed the shift. It's not just that India's external outreach is under pressure. It's that New Delhi didn't calculate how quickly it could all turn against it. Which is why it's worth asking – when did this downward spiral really begin? The answer might be more uncomfortable than New Delhi would admit. It began when India came back with a red nose from its tactical military misadventure against Pakistan. What was meant to be a display of strength became a lesson in miscalculation. Pakistan's response may have been measured, but it was also effective — and for the first time in recent years, India looked rattled, not resolute. And things haven't really steadied since then. The high-profile fallout with Trump, the awkward rebalancing with Russia, the sudden international scrutiny, and the glaring trade vulnerabilities – all of it seems to have followed that single setback. A tactical error turned into a strategic correction, with India suddenly less in control of its narrative than it likes to believe. That loss of control now shadows not just diplomacy, but economics. India, the world's fourth-largest economy, is understandably in a rush to secure tariff relief. But while the economic impact of trade penalties will sting, there's more than an outside chance that the political fallout could prove just as costly. At a time when investor confidence hinges on perceptions of stability and rule of law, New Delhi has found itself fending off uncomfortable headlines – about overreach, about censorship, and about the conduct of its intelligence services abroad. These stories may not dominate for long, but they do leave dents. And while the world was looking at India's external footprint, something else was quietly unraveling at home. The internal climate has grown sharper, harder, more authoritarian. A sprawling censorship regime has now made India one of the most aggressive regulators of online speech. The confrontation with Elon Musk's platform X exposed the extent of digital control – from takedown notices over cartoons to entire news stories pulled for being 'provocative.' Dissent is no longer debated; it's deleted. The disconnect is striking. While the outside world celebrated India as the world's most populous democracy and fastest-growing major economy, the institutions within have grown more fragile, more paranoid. For years, this contrast was papered over by economic performance and diplomatic outreach. But now that the external wins have stalled, the internal strain is harder to hide. What's unfolding now is a full-spectrum test of Indian statecraft. Modi, once seen as the architect of India's confident global rise, now finds himself managing retreat. Trump mocks him openly. Pakistan, once sidelined diplomatically, now basks in praise from Washington. Russia looks wary. BRICS looks uncertain. And the very notion that Trump 2.0 would unlock a new era of US-India alignment now looks like wishful thinking at best, strategic self-deception at worst. What follows from here will reveal far more than the past ever did — about New Delhi's capacity to navigate diplomatic volatility, about whether its foreign policy doctrine can survive a reshuffled world order, and about whether domestic cohesion can be maintained as the external bets begin to unravel. The hype is over. The spotlight is on. And India's real test begins now. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
