The alleged release of six TTP prisoners in exchange for two Frontier Corps men being held by militants will be sure to cause controversy in the days ahead. The military has already denied the prisoner exchange but, while there is no independent confirmation of the swap, we have examples of such deals being cut with the TTP in the past. In 2008, just as the military was getting ready to pull out of South Waziristan and hold talks with the then TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud, 37 of his militants were released in return for 12 soldiers. At the time, that swap and the others which followed seemed necessary since the TTP was holding more than 200 Pakistani soldiers and officials, including our ambassador to Afghanistan. This time round, if indeed a prisoner exchange has taken place, the rationale for it is far less clear. Perhaps it was meant as a gesture to the TTP in advance of the peace talks agreed upon at the All-Parties Conference. If that is indeed the case, we should look back to the 2008 negotiations with Baitullah Mehsud, which produced a short-lasting agreement, the terms of which the TTP flouted at will and used only as an opportunity to regroup. There is a danger that the TTP will again see the prisoner exchange, lopsided as it is in their favour, as a sign of weakness ahead of the talks.

As a general rule, governments avoid prisoner exchanges with those holding hostages because it only encourages them to kidnap more people. The last thing the state should want is to start giving in to every TTP demand since that bodes ill for the upcoming peace talks. Everyone knows that the side which is likely to emerge victorious in negotiations is the one that comes to the bargaining table in a position of strength. The military successes in the tribal areas should have made the state the stronger party. Unilateral concessions such as this prisoner swap may end up undermining its position and convincing the TTP that it can be pushed around. If an exchange had to have taken place, the authorities should have demanded either an equal swap or that their men should be released first. Guarantees should also have been received that the released militants do not pick up weapons again. Without such steps, the state may end up shooting itself in the foot once talks begin with the TTP. One should not end up being a victim of one’s own fear.



The national carrier, which once proudly soared to the skies, is now struggling and is barely able to keep afloat. Like other giant national entities, it is acting as a drain on the exchequer instead of bringing in much-needed profits. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told a federal cabinet meeting that PIA was incurring colossal losses per month. The situation PIA finds itself in means billions need to be poured into it each year. As the PM pointed out, these should be going into the energy projects we so urgently need. He is also correct in stating that what has happened to PIA is a result of inefficiency and poor management. With a vast service network and a continued monopoly over most routes in the country, PIA should certainly be able to hold its own.

There can be no excuse for the dishonourable table of figures in red put before the cabinet but the state of affairs within PIA – nepotism, mismanagement and corruption – have been known to us for long. The rot has destroyed layer after layer and will now be all the harder to eradicate. But the mammoth task has to start before the possibility of saving a service which was once the source of so much national pride slips away entirely from our hands. The political factors involved in the whole mess add to the complexities. Many fear a deliberate attempt to bring PIA stock so low that it may then be handed over cheaply to a political crony. This is, to one degree or the other, true of other national organisations as well. The Pakistan Railways is one such example. These giant bodies have turned into white elephants, forcing the state to bend under their weight. Just as we need to bring in investment, we need to prevent the resources we already have from being eaten away. This can only happen if we begin the task of urgent resuscitation, with professional, apolitical managements selected purely on merit, before these bodies fall into a state of total collapse, making rescue impossible.



We are living through an era where technological change has come in more quickly than at any other time. The internet, mobile phones and the new innovations associated with them have changed lives forever. We rarely think of these additions as anything more than a convenience and a means of instant communication. The points raised by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry about the impact of these developments on other aspects of life should, therefore, make us think. Addressing a meeting of the Law and Justice Commission in Islamabad, the CJ said that the laws of the country had lagged behind, given the technological changes that had become a part of daily activities, and the altered social behaviours these brought. What we do revolves to a growing extent around mobile phones, the internet, social networking sites and various technologies. Laws have been introduced to tackle cyber crime in the wake of these changes but the call for wider legal reform in response to the realities of the age we live in is certainly relevant. Indeed, a significant number of our laws date back decades, even to colonial times, and we need to move beyond these.

In view of the points raised at the meeting of the commission, which is also tasked with the responsibility of suggesting reforms in law, we need to consider more deeply quite what is needed. Much business takes place using new technologies, and so does crime, as was noted just recently by the prime minister in his call to block illegal or unregistered SIMs, while YouTube has become a source of intense debate in our country due to factors we are familiar with. Given the deep inroads technology has made into life, laws need to be updated, keeping this in consideration. Quite how this is to happen is something a consensus needs to be built around so that we can ensure we are not left behind by time and the new devices, tools and gadgets it has brought. What other countries have done for these reforms can be a starting point.