Patchwork or reformed justice?
Selective morality does not make for sound legislation. That, unfortunately, is what Pakistan's latest move to curtail the death penalty seems to embody. In a bid to retain GSP+ trade concessions from the EU, the Senate of Pakistan has passed a bill that abolishes capital punishment for harbouring hijackers and for the public stripping of women — two serious offences — while leaving more than a hundred others untouched.
This piecemeal amendment reeks of convenience rather than conviction. It appears designed to tick boxes for international partners rather than reflect any meaningful shift in the state's approach to justice or human rights. No broader framework has been presented to justify why certain crimes merit the death penalty while others do not. Instead, the government has opted for selective rollback without a principled foundation.
Criticism from both treasury and opposition benches in the Senate points to this very disconnect. PTI's Barrister Ali Zafar equated the public stripping of a woman with murder, arguing that such crimes warrant the harshest possible punishment. Senator Samina Mumtaz Zehri cautioned that lighter sentences in such cases may embolden criminals rather than deter them. There is merit in these concerns — not necessarily because the death penalty is the answer, but because the reform itself lacks depth and cohesion.
If capital punishment is to be curtailed, it must be done with a comprehensive review of all offences that currently carry the sentence, followed by a national debate on what constitutes a "most serious crime". The removal of the death penalty for just two offences, without a broader review of Pakistan's capital punishment regime, reflects an ad hoc approach that neither satisfies moral imperatives nor strengthens the justice system.
It only deepens the confusion. Eventually, lawmakers must consider the role of capital punishment in a modern justice system and within the context of Pakistan's socio-economic paradigm, through proper consultation with legal and human rights experts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Downed jets & dangerous storylines
In May this year, India's prized Rafale jets — once paraded as the crown jewels of its military modernisation — fell from the skies during an unprovoked escalation with its adversary, nuclear-armed neighbour, Pakistan. What followed was less a military debrief than a media spectacle, as New Delhi worked tirelessly to rebrand the skirmish as a triumph, spinning the narrative long after the dust had settled. Two months after the nuclear-armed rivals edged toward open conflict, India's Deputy Chief of Army Staff made a revelation — not in a formal strategic forum or before an international audience, but while addressing a gathering hosted by the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. During 'Operation Sindoor', he claimed, India had confronted not one but three adversaries – Pakistan as the 'front face,' with China and Türkiye allegedly providing critical support to Islamabad behind the scenes. Lieutenant General Rahul R. Singh, stitching together India's latest storyline around Operation Sindoor, reached for an ancient analogy to make his point. Citing The 36 Stratagems, a Chinese military classic, he invoked the tactic of 'killing with a borrowed knife' — the idea of striking an enemy through a proxy. China, he suggested, had done precisely that, using Pakistan as its instrument to inflict damage on India while avoiding direct confrontation. 'China would rather use the neighbour to cause pain [to India] than get involved in mudslinging on the northern border,' he told the gathering — a line that neatly folded geopolitics into parable. The officer went further to claim a-known fact that Pakistan is heavily dependent on Chinese military hardware. 'If you were to look at statistics in the last five years, 81% of the military hardware that Pakistan gets is from China.' By that logic, experts point out, India too was effectively backed by France — and even Russia — given that the weapons deployed against Pakistan were sourced from those very countries. Rafale jets and their SCALP-EG missile systems were used in strikes that left scores of Pakistani civilians dead. The use of these French-supplied arms, critics argue, sits uneasily with the European Union's own arms export regulations, which prohibit the transfer of weapons likely to be used in acts of aggression or against civilian populations. Both the Rafale aircraft and SCALP-EG missiles are exported under the EU's Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, which outlines eight legally binding criteria that member states must apply when granting arms export licences. These are not advisory guidelines, but enforceable obligations under EU law. Failure to comply with these criteria, experts said, not only undermines EU credibility but may also constitute a breach of international humanitarian law. Hassan Akbar, a former Pakistan Fellow at the Wilson Center, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, described the latest iteration of India's narrative as 'convoluted.' 'It is being peddled by New Delhi in an attempt to explain away the failures of its military against a smaller adversary, and to paint Pakistan as a proxy of China—particularly for Western audiences,' he said. Pakistan's success, he noted, was primarily the result of indigenous advancements that enabled its fighter jets, radars, electronic warfare platforms, and sensors—sourced from various countries—to operate seamlessly in a networked, multi-domain environment. 'If one follows India's logic, then Pakistan wasn't just fighting the Indians, but also the Russians, the French, and others from whom India procures its defence equipment. It's evident that India's narrative lacks both evidence and coherence,' said Hassan. But India has, by now, earned a reputation for narrative-building. Investigations by the Brussels-based EU DisinfoLab previously uncovered a sprawling network of fake news websites linked to New Delhi — suggesting that the Modi government has long been engaged in shaping favourable perceptions abroad, particularly to keep Western allies firmly in its corner. Its latest attempt to rope in China and Türkiye — apparently to deflect international embarrassment over Operation Sindoor — appears to follow that same well-worn playbook. 'Shifting Indian narratives around Operation Sindoor — particularly the effort to draw China and Türkiye into the equation — only undermines whatever credibility is left,' said Dr Talat Wizarat, former head of international relations at the University of Karachi. For a country that claims regional power status, she added, 'India has shown remarkably little control over keeping its own storyline steady and consistent.' Shifting lines in the sand In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, India was drawing lines in the sand—each washed away for the next. What began as a brief military flare-up with Pakistan quickly morphed into a campaign of narrative consolidation, where the facts of the operation were overshadowed by the story New Delhi wanted the world to see and believe. The Modi government packaged the operation as a masterstroke in strategic deterrence, but the cracks were visible from the start. India's own Rafale jets crashed, yet the official line barely acknowledged that, choosing instead to inflate the scale and scope of the threat. So extreme was the narrative that India claimed it wasn't merely facing Pakistan but a coordinated axis including China and Türkiye—an assertion that lacked substantive proof and seemed more geopolitical theatre than military assessment. This reframing allowed India to sidestep uncomfortable scrutiny over intelligence gaps and civilian casualties. The use of French-supplied Rafales and missile systems against Pakistani targets, some of which struck civilian zones, also threw a wrench into the European Union's arms export standards, which ostensibly forbid such end-use. In Brussels and Paris, the silence was telling. India's post-operation messaging relied heavily on volume and repetition rather than verifiability, in keeping with its now-familiar strategy of managing perception rather than consequence. Critics argue that Operation Sindoor wasn't a turning point in regional security dynamics but rather a continuation of a pattern – military engagement followed by information warfare, where ambiguity is weaponised and accountability conveniently disappears. 'The fact that the Indian government had to offer so many versions of what it called a victory over Pakistan suggests there was no real victory to begin with—if any at all,' quipped Wizarat, a keen observer of regional affairs. The great embarrassment Prime Minister Narendra Modi has developed a reputation for his showmanship. After every major international event, the BJP leader tends to fire off posts on X, formerly Twitter, calling most — if not all — foreign leaders his dear friends. His image as India's prime minister, experts argue, has been carefully choreographed. At the consecration of the Ram temple — built on the site of the Mughal-era Babri Masjid — it was not the high priest but Modi himself who led the ceremony, performing rituals traditionally reserved for Hindu religious leaders. The aftermath of Operation Sindoor has, in many ways, proved an embarrassment for Modi's curated image — both at home and abroad. 'The chorus of critical voices has been louder,' said one expert, who did not wish to be named. The extent of the unease was captured in a recent post by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who shared a clip of US President Donald Trump suggesting that India lost five jets during the escalation. 'Modi ji, what is the truth about the five jets? The country has the right to know,' Gandhi posted — a pointed jab at his political rival and India's sitting prime minister. But the embarrassment hasn't been confined to India alone. Shares of Dassault Aviation — the French manufacturer of Rafale jets used by India during 'Operation Sindoor' — slumped on European stock markets. A symbolic fall, some noted wryly, echoing the very aircraft reportedly brought down by Pakistani fire. 'New Delhi's credibility as a country claiming military superiority over its adversaries came crashing down with those jets. Had it maintained a consistent narrative, the embarrassment might have been avoided,' said Wizarat. Akbar, in his precise assessment of Modi's predicament, noted -- 'India's political and military leadership has been trying to sell their shortcomings during the conflict as a victory to domestic audiences.' The former Wilson Center fellow's view rings true in light of Prime Minister Modi's actions. Shortly after the operation — and despite the humiliation of Indian fighter jets smouldering in the wake of Operation Sindoor — Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as The Wire reported, positioned himself squarely at the heart of a triumph he had all but choreographed. His public addresses became rituals of symbolism, thick with invocations of sindoor, however, conspicuously devoid of any reference to the militants behind the Pahalgam attack. Then, on 12 May — a full forty-eight hours after US President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan — Modi launched into an unrelenting campaign blitz -- nine rallies in eight days across six states, as if electoral momentum could be spun from the ashes of a fractured narrative. Wizarat described the entire operation as meticulously timed for electoral gain. 'It has become almost predictable,' she noted, for India's political leadership to invoke the threat of Pakistan — or the spectre of Muslims — in the run-up to elections, as a way to consolidate support among its Hindu base. The China conundrum They say one lie begets another — a spiral of invention to conceal what never truly was. India now finds itself tangled in precisely such a mess. Despite New Delhi's persistent evasions over the fate of its downed fighter jets during the skirmish, new reports have emerged confirming what the government has long tried to bury -- that its prized aircraft were indeed shot down — not by a technologically superior Western force, but by Chinese-made weapons in Pakistani hands. Armed with that uncomfortable truth, Indian officials have begun aiming their rhetorical fire at Beijing, painting China as the main villain in the conflict. However, experts argue that the accusation stretches the boundaries of credibility. 'The sale of arms — however consequential — does not make China a combatant, any more than France or Russia were deemed parties to the conflict for supplying India with the very weapons it used against Pakistan,' said Wizarat. India, Wizarat argued, must move past its obsession with outpacing China in the regional — or even broader global — power race. 'If anything, the recent escalation between Pakistan and India has shattered the myth of Western superiority in the arms race,' she concluded. According to Akbar, India's attempt to reframe the narrative was less about facts on the ground and more about courting Western sympathy — achieved by invoking alleged Chinese involvement in the tit-for-tat exchanges with Pakistan. The insult that bleeds If the downing of the Rafales was an insult, the injury hasn't let up — not because it must, but because India's persistent denial and deflection keep inviting it. The most recent blow came from The Economist, which detailed an incident Indian authorities still refuse to acknowledge. On May 7, the London-based publication reported, residents of Akalia Kalan — a village near a northern Indian airbase — were jolted awake by an unfamiliar roar and a series of explosions. A ball of fire streaked across the sky before crashing into a field. The wreckage, unmistakably a fighter jet, killed two villagers. The pilots had ejected and were later found injured in nearby fields. India has yet to officially confirm the incident — one of several aircraft losses during a brief but intense four-day conflict with Pakistan. While New Delhi disputes Islamabad's claim of downing six jets — including three French-made Rafales — foreign military observers, The Economist noted, have verified that at least five Indian aircraft were lost. Indian military sources have since quietly conceded losses, though they suggest operational errors, not technological failure, may be to blame. The implications are far-reaching. According to defence experts, this was the first time advanced Chinese weapons — Pakistan's J-10 fighters and PL-15 missiles — were deployed against Western and Russian systems. Early assessments, The Economist reported, pointed to the superiority of Chinese systems — and possible real-time intelligence sharing from Beijing. But the most damning revelation may have come from within -- a leaked recording of India's defence attaché in Jakarta, Captain Shiv Kumar, aired in June. In it, he admits India's initial losses were due to political constraints that barred the air force from targeting Pakistani military installations. Only after suffering setbacks, he said, were the rules of engagement expanded. 'The fact that India continues to deflect questions about gains and losses shows there were real issues not only during the operation, but also in its aftermath — where any victorious side would have flaunted its trophies right away. India, however, has been on the back foot ever since,' said Wizarat. 'Instead of adding China to the equation, India must fix its own equation,' she concluded.
Business Recorder
an hour ago
- Business Recorder
PTI strategy stalls oath-taking of reserved seat lawmakers in KP Assembly
A session of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly scheduled for oath-taking of lawmakers on reserved seats was adjourned on Sunday after the treasury benches raised the issue of quorum, a deliberate move seen as part of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's (PTI) strategy to delay the process amid internal rifts and growing pressure ahead of Senate elections, Aaj News reported. The assembly session, scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., was delayed by nearly two and a half hours and eventually adjourned until July 24 at 2:00 p.m. due to a lack of quorum. The adjournment halted the swearing-in of several women and minority lawmakers from the opposition, despite their presence in the house. The session, chaired by Speaker Babar Saleem Swati, began only briefly before PTI lawmaker Sher Ali Afridi pointed out the quorum, prompting government members to start leaving the hall one by one. Only four PTI lawmakers were present in the chamber at the time, sources said. Opposition parties, including PML-N, JUI-F, and PPP, slammed the government's tactics, accusing it of deliberately obstructing the democratic process. Several opposition lawmakers gathered in front of the speaker's dais, shouting slogans and urging him to proceed with the oath-taking. Speaker Swati noted that the required strength of 25 members was not met, and therefore, the session could not continue. A female member from the opposition objected, saying quorum cannot be pointed out during Quranic recitation, but the speaker insisted on counting members before any further debate. Among those present to take oath were PML-N's Farah Khan, Amina Sardar, Faiza Malik, Shazia Jadoon, Afsha Hussain, Jameela Paracha, and Sonia Hussain, along with JUI-F's Bilqees, Sitara Afrin, and Aiman Jaleel Jan. PPP's Madiha Afridi and Rabia Shaheen, and other minority and women lawmakers were also in attendance. PHC bars elected MPAs on reserved seats from taking oath The move comes amid reports of widening cracks within the ruling PTI's provincial chapter. According to party insiders, tensions between Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and a breakaway faction of PTI lawmakers have intensified, particularly over the allocation of Senate tickets. Sources claimed that the party leadership, anticipating backlash from disgruntled members, had devised a 'Plan B' to avoid the oath-taking altogether. The tactic: disrupt the quorum to prevent the opposition from gaining voting strength ahead of the upcoming Senate elections. Opposition Leader Dr Ibadullah told reporters that if the government continues to block the process, the opposition alliance has alternative legal routes to ensure the swearing-in takes place. He added that any delay is a 'blatant subversion of parliamentary norms' and called on the Election Commission to take notice. Meanwhile, opposition parties held an emergency meeting at the Governor's House to outline their next steps. With political temperatures rising in the province, both sides appear locked in a high-stakes standoff that could shape the composition of the upper house in the weeks to come.
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
PTI rift threatens to unravel govt-op bonhomie
Listen to article The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) found itself in the throes of a growing internal rift on Saturday as rebel Senate candidates rejected the party's 'diktat' to withdraw their nomination papers, vowing instead to contest the July 21 polls in open defiance of an opposition-backed consensus deal. The development came as the government and opposition in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have struck a rare unity pact to ensure the victory of 11 agreed-upon Senate candidates in a move to sideline the party's rebels. PTI's political committee, meeting late Saturday night, endorsed a power-sharing agreement with the opposition and reaffirmed the list of official candidates issued by party founder Imran Khan. However, the move has triggered a backlash from sidelined aspirants, who accuse the leadership of capitulating to what they term an "establishment-sponsored deal". Despite the directive to withdraw, five rebel candidates, including Irfan Saleem, Khurram Zishan, Waqas Orakzai, former IG Irshad Hussain and Aisha Bano, stood their ground following internal consultations. In public statements and video messages, they declared they would not bow to what they alleged to be "political expediency" and "closed-door compromises". "This has gone far beyond the Senate elections," Khurram Zishan said in a defiant message. "We're being asked to hand over our trust to the very people who jailed our workers, tortured our elders, and stole our mandate via Form 47. We reject political wheeling and dealing. We are not playing politics ... we are waging resistance." Party pushes back, rebels dig in The party's political committee, while backing PTI Imran Khan's handpicked list, acknowledged internal objections, including to candidates like Mishal Yousafzai and Irfan Saleem, but said the founder's decisions were final. The committee warned dissidents that they could face disciplinary notices if they did not comply. PTI leadership has given the rebel candidates a deadline of 12 noon today to withdraw. However, the dissenters, emboldened by what they claim are 20 MPAs in contact with them, appear undeterred. Irfan Saleem accused PTI's leadership of forming an "unholy alliance" to install establishment-backed candidates. "We will not allow this taint on a legislature built on Imran Khan's name," he said. "Our resistance is not personal, it is ideological." Aisha Bano said the Senate seats were "a trust given to us by the party's workers and Khan himself," and would not be handed to those who "stole our mandate". "This is not just another election ... it's the front line of a movement," she said. Govt, opposition join forces to shut out rebels Meanwhile, sources confirmed that the government and opposition in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa have struck a rare unity pact to ensure the victory of 11 agreed-upon Senate candidates in a move to sideline the PTI rebels. Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and opposition leader Dr Ibadullah will jointly oversee the formation and coordination of seven special voting panels. Four of these will be supervised by provincial ministers, with the remaining three managed by opposition parliamentary leaders. Under the plan, government MPAs will be gathered at the CM House and dispatched in groups to cast votes under ministerial supervision. Opposition MPs will follow a similar strategy. Each panel will be instructed to vote for specific general, women, and technocrat candidates. The cooperation includes an accountability mechanism, with both sides agreeing to investigate if votes slip toward rebel candidates. A backup Plan B, involving delaying the election or swearing in new MPAs, was discussed but ultimately set aside due to a lack of consensus. Senior PTI leaders are expected to be present in the assembly during the vote, as are key opposition figures. Sources within the opposition expressed confidence in the arrangement. "We are satisfied with the government's commitment. All eleven candidates should win smoothly if the agreement holds," they said.
