An unnecessary overreach
However, its role was largely confined to localized operations within these specific regions. What is different now is that the government has expanded the FC's jurisdiction, establishing a new Federal Reserve Force under its command with responsibilities for anti-riot and special protection duties.
This new structure will be granted powers as outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Police Order, and any other applicable laws. Furthermore, the ordinance empowers the federal government to confer upon any FC member the powers of a police officer, of any class or grade, as per the laws in force at the time.
Ostensibly, this move is a response to growing national security concerns. However, the decision to elevate the FC to a federal force and deploy it nationwide raises questions about the underlying rationale, particularly given its potential overlap with other paramilitary forces.
The Rangers, for instance, already operate in various parts of the country, particularly urban centers like Karachi, where they have played a key role in counterterrorism and controlling civil unrest. The necessity of expanding the FC's role, therefore, is questionable.
Its current deployment in the border regions of Baluchistan and the tribal districts of KP is justified by the unique security challenges these regions face, such as cross-border militancy, insurgency, and ethnic tensions. These challenges do not exist in other provinces – at least not at the same level of intensity.
The police are quite capable of handling civil disturbances and riots. Additionally, there already are a range of law enforcement agencies, including the Rangers, and even the military in certain situations. The involvement of army officers in the leadership of the FC's new Federal Reserve Force raises further concerns.
This suggests a more militarised approach to policing, which could undermine civilian authority and exacerbate tensions between law enforcement agencies and the public. In non-conflict areas, such a heavy-handed approach would not only be unnecessary but could also lead to potential abuses of power, eroding what little trust remains between citizens and the government.
Ultimately, the decision to deploy the FC across the entire country risks creating more problems than it aims to resolve. The focus should instead be on improving the efficiency of existing law enforcement agencies, enhancing inter-agency cooperation, and ensuring that the right force is deployed in the right context. Overwhelming the country with multiple paramilitary forces will create challenges that may undermine the very security these forces are intended to protect.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
India's peacock parade: a march into regional instability
Listen to article The national bird of India is the peacock, a majestic animal known for its dazzling display of feathers. It is a grandiose symbol of beauty and prestige. India's strategic arsenal seems to be following the same ideology of the peacock, putting on a dazzling display in order to solidify its place in the global pecking order. However, this form of showboating serves as a harrowing and dangerous precedent for the South Asian region. It reflects a country, prioritising prestige over its national security demands which can create a security dilemma for the region and the world at large. India's initial drive towards nuclear weapons followed a path of minimum deterrence, with India even opting for a No-First Use (NFU) policy as soon as it conducted its nuclear tests in 1998. India has maintained that China and Pakistan are its key security concerns and for that reason, it has developed nuclear weapons. However, considering India's trajectory of strategic arsenal developments, it no longer seems the case. It appears that India has evolved its threat matrix to other global actors as well. At least, that is what these developments indicate. India has joined multiple exclusive clubs in the recent years. It is now one of the few countries that possess Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM), Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons and hypersonic missiles as well. Through programmes such as Agni, India is also adding additional strategic capabilities to its arsenal such as the ability to have Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV)-based warheads, allowing India to gain an edge in terms of its nuclear weapons delivery and extend a threatening arm to other continents. For a state that views its immediate neighborhood as threat, the development of such weapon systems does not make much strategic sense. India already has enough delivery vehicles and warheads to deter China and Pakistan. Given the geographical proximity of India's adversaries, such weapon systems pose no distinct military advantage. However, if India has global ambitions, then this makes perfect sense. In addition, India is also in the possession of hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles such as the Shaurya with a range close to 2000km. Travelling at speeds greater than Mach 7 (seven times the speed of sound), these missiles will drastically cut down the flight time to target. Development of such platforms is an indication that India may be opting for a counterforce strategy rather than the longstanding countervalue targeting. By having delivery vehicles that can evade missile defences and land decisive blows to military targets, India may consider this as a viable strategy in case of a nuclear escalation. Counterforce strategies are inherently dangerous in a strategically contested environment. Perhaps, the biggest challenge is that if a country becomes more assured of its counterforce capabilities it is more inclined to initiate a preemptive strike. An indication of this is the fact that India's longstanding NFU status has come under increased scrutiny in the recent times. Prominent Indian analysts such as Bharat Karnad and BS Nagal have been vociferously critical about India's NFU status. This idea emerges from the BJP 2014 election campaign that calls for a revision and updating of India's nuclear doctrine, indicating the ruling party's future ambitions. This is further solidified from statements of key government officials like Rajnath Singh and Manohar Parrikar. In conclusion, India's prestige-driven model of strategic ambition creates a security dilemma within the region. Backed by a nationalistic government with stated goals of doctrinal revisions, the South Asian region will remain embroiled in an arms race. The peacock's feathers may continue to shimmer in the sun, but they provide no further protection in the rain, no matter how dazzling they may be. If India truly seeks peace and respect at the international stage, it must rethink whether it wants to impress, or wants to ensure security.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Shah Mahmood Qureshi acquitted, Yasmin Rashid sentenced to 10 years in May 9 case
Listen to article An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Lahore has acquitted six Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders, including Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Hamza Azeem, in connection with the May 9 riots, while sentencing 10 others, including Dr Yasmin Rashid and Mian Mehmood-ur-Rasheed, to 10 years in prison on Tuesday. The court delivered its verdict in the case concerning inflammatory speeches and vandalism at the Sherpao Bridge. The court, which had completed final arguments from both the defence and prosecution, reserved its decision before announcing the ruling. The verdict stated that the ATC acquitted Qureshi, Azeem, and four other accused individuals due to insufficient evidence. However, the court found 10 others guilty and handed down 10-year prison sentences for their role in the violence that followed the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan. The case involves violent protests and damage caused to public and private property, including incidents of arson and vandalism, that erupted on May 9, following the arrest of the former prime minister. Earlier, an ATC in Sargodha sentenced Opposition Leader in the Punjab Assembly, PTI's Malik Ahmed Khan Bhachar, and other party workers to 10 years in prison each. They were found guilty of involvement in creating law and order disturbances, anarchy, and arson during the May 9 riots, which erupted following the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan. The ATC judge delivered the verdict after hearing detailed arguments and finding that the prosecution had established its case. The defence counsels argued that the accused were not involved in the charges brought against them, claiming that these were politically motivated cases. May 9 Riots The May 9 riots erupted nationwide following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan, after which PTI leaders and workers staged protests targeting both civil and military installations, including Jinnah House and the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi. The military condemned the events as a "Black Day" and decided to try the protesters under the Army Act. As a result of the unrest, many PTI members were arrested and tried in military courts. In December, a military court convicted 25 individuals, including Imran Khan's nephew, Hassan Khan Niazi, and later sentenced 60 more. In January, 19 convicts had their sentences pardoned following successful mercy appeals, although PTI expressed dissatisfaction over the limited number of pardons. The military trials had initially been halted following a Supreme Court ruling but were resumed following the court's instructions to finalise pending cases and announce judgments for those involved in the violent incidents.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump pulls US out of UN cultural agency UNESCO for second time
US President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Filipino President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on July 22, 2025. Photo: AFP Listen to article President Donald Trump has decided to pull the United States out of the "woke" and "divisive" UN culture and education agency UNESCO, the White House said on Tuesday, repeating a move he took in his first term that was reversed by Joe Biden. The withdrawal from the Paris-based agency, which was founded after World War Two to promote peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture, will take effect at the end of next year. The move is in line with the Trump administration's broader "America-first" foreign policy, which includes a deep skepticism of multilateral groups, including the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and even the NATO alliance. Also Read: UN adopts Pakistan-sponsored resolution on 'peaceful dispute settlement' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said UNESCO "supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for." The State Department accused UNESCO of supporting "a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy". It said its decision to admit the Palestinians as a member state was "highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric." UNESCO chief Audrey Azoulay said she deeply regretted Trump's decision, but it was "expected, and UNESCO has prepared for it". Soutien indéfectible à l'UNESCO, protecteur universel de la science, de l'Océan, de l'éducation, de la culture et du patrimoine mondial. Le retrait des États-Unis ne fera pas faiblir notre engagement aux côtés de celles et ceux qui portent ce combat. — Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) July 22, 2025 Posting on X, French President Emmanuel Macron professed "unwavering support" for the "universal protector" of world heritage and said the US move would not weaken France's commitment for UNESCO. UNESCO officials said the US withdrawal would have some limited impact on US-financed programs. Azoulay said UNESCO had diversified funding sources, receiving only about 8% of its budget from Washington. UNESCO was one of several international bodies Trump withdrew from during his first term, along with the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement climate change accord and the UN Human Rights Council. During his second term, he has largely reinstated those steps. Trump's pick to be his UN envoy, Mike Waltz, said this month the United Nations needs reform while expressing confidence that "we can make the UN great again." Israel praises US 'moral support and leadership' Israel welcomed the US decision with its UN, ambassador Danny Danon accusing UNESCO of "consistent misguided anti-Israel bias." In a post on X, Israel's foreign minister, Gideon Sa'ar, thanked Washington for its "moral support and leadership" and said that "Singling out Israel and politicization by member states must end, in this and all professional UN agencies." We welcome the US administration's decision to withdraw from UNESCO. This is a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system, a right which has often been trampled due to politicization in this arena. Singling out Israel and… — Gideon Sa'ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) July 22, 2025 UNESCO officials said all relevant agency statements had been agreed with both Israel and the Palestinians over the past eight years. Azoulay said the US had given the same reasons for its pullout as it had seven years ago "even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism." "These claims also contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism," she added. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is best known for designating World Heritage Sites, including the US Grand Canyon and Egypt's pyramids. It lists 26 sites in the United States, including the Statue of Liberty, on its World Heritage List which highlights 1,248 global locations of "outstanding universal value." Read: Monsoon devastation continues as death toll reaches 242 Washington has had a troubled relationship with UNESCO over the years. It was a founding member in 1945 but first withdrew in 1984 to protest alleged financial mismanagement and perceived anti-US bias during the Cold War. It returned in 2003 under President George W. Bush, who said UNESCO had undertaken needed reforms, but in 2011 the Obama administration announced it was stopping funding for the agency following its vote to grant the Palestinians full membership. Trump's first administration announced in 2017 it was quitting after accusing UNESCO of anti-Israeli bias, with Washington owing $542 million in dues, before former President Biden reversed the decision in 2023.
