Blog

Usman Khawaja insisted on Sunday he did not “throw anyone under the bus” by claiming the entire Australian team was in on the 2018 “Sandpapergate” plot and defended taking eight years to go public.

The retired batsman re-ignited the infamous ball-tampering scandal in Cape Town on Saturday ahead of the release of his autobiography this week, where a chapter is dedicated to the issue.

He alleged that it was not just Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft — who were all subsequently banned— who were responsible.

“It was all of us. Not the batters, not the bowlers, not the staff. All of us,” he said.

Khawaja claimed Australia also employed the tactic during the previous Test at Port Elizabeth.

In response Darren Lehmann, who was head coach at the time, denied there was widespread knowledge of the plot while Cricket Australia said it was “comfortable” with the findings of its original investigation.

That probe found only Smith, Warner and Bancroft were in the know.

“When I mentioned it was all of us, that’s implying that whether we like it or not, we’re all responsible for what happened together as a team,” Khawaja said in a lengthy Instagram post on Sunday.

“We need to take that collectively. That is all.” He added: “I haven’t thrown anyone under the bus.

“The guys that are currently in the team right now and the other people that were there on the South African tour, including me, we’re not the victims.

“These three guys (Smith, Warner and Bancroft) took the blame for all of us.

“They’re the victims … people telling them that they’re cheats, getting nailed by the crowd. Public humiliation.”

Khawaja, who retired this year after 88 Tests, defended waiting so long to make the claims, denying it was a marketing ploy to sell his book.

He said he wanted to go public in 2018 once Smith, Warner and Bancroft were suspended.

“But Smudge (Smith) being the man and leader he was, he talked me out of it.

“He wanted to take the blame. I argued with him, but he was having none of it. That’s the first time I tried to come out.”

Khawaja said he again almost spoke up in 2021 when bowlers Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon all denied publicly that they knew about the ball-tampering.

But after extensive talks with then-coach Justin Langer he decided not to.

The 39-year-old said he never felt comfortable talking after that while back in the Australian team from 2022.

“Call me a chicken or whatever you want. I didn’t know how to do it because I was still in the team,” Khawaja said. “I was always conscious of putting my team first, but I’m not in that team anymore.”

Source: dawn

KARACHI: The station house officer (SHO) of the Pak Colony police station was suspended after an audio clip went viral on social media in which he purportedly sought an apology from a drug dealer.

The action was taken by South DIG Syed Asad Raza against SHO Faisal Gul.

A police spokesperson said in a statement that the department would approach the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency for verification of the audio clip.

According to an order, an audio recording surfaced on social media on Nov 5, allegedly featuring the SHO and a police constable in an “unauthorised, compromising conversation with a known drug peddler, Kashif alias Dada”.

The SHO had “compromised the writ of law” by pursuing mutual reconciliation with a criminal and directing his subordinate to apologise to the drug peddler, the order stated.

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2026

Source: dawn

RAWALPINDI: The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Rawalpindi has postponed the Computer Science papers of the Intermediate Second Annual Examinations 2026 scheduled for November 10 (Tuesday), fixing November 30 as the new date.

On the recommendation of the Jhelum deputy commissioner, the BISE Rawalpindi rescheduled the papers in view of the expected visit of Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz to Jhelum and Pind Dadan Khan on November 10.

According to a letter addressed to the BISE Rawalpindi chairman, the deputy commissioner recommended postponing the computer science papers in Jhelum district.

The letter available with Dawn stated that the Punjab chief minister was expected to visit Jhelum district on November 10, for which extensive administrative, security and protocol arrangements were being made by the district administration.

“In this regard, due to the consequent deployment of administrative and security personnel, it is not feasible to ensure the smooth and uninterrupted conduct of the said examination in the district. It is, therefore, requested that the examination be postponed and rescheduled for another suitable date to avoid any inconvenience to students and ensure the smooth conduct of both the examination and the VVIP visit,” the letter stated.

Acting on the request, the BISE Rawalpindi rescheduled the computer science papers for both morning and evening groups. According to BISE spokesman Arslan Cheema, Mubashir Saeed, Controller of Examinations at the board, issued a notification announcing the revised schedule.

He said the computer science papers of the Intermediate Second Annual Examination 2026, scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, had been postponed in Jhelum district following the recommendation of the deputy commissioner in view of administrative arrangements in the district.

Mubashir Saeed clarified that the papers would be held as originally scheduled at all examination centres in other districts falling under the jurisdiction of the Rawalpindi board. The new date for the postponed Computer Science papers in Jhelum district has been fixed for Monday, November 30, 2026.

On that day, the computer science paper for the morning group will be held during the morning session, while the corresponding paper for the evening group will take place during the evening session at the previously assigned examination centres.

According to the controller of examinations, new roll number slips will be issued for the convenience of students. However, previously issued roll number slips will also remain valid.

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2026

Source: dawn

THE commentary that followed the recent Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) judgement dismissing the harassment claim of an NBP employee gives the impression that the court has rolled back the scope of the workplace harassment law so that it now covers only incidents of an ove­r­tly sexual nature, excluding conduct that amounts to gender-based discrimination. This is incorrect.

The correct position of the law now is this: allegations of workplace harassment prior to 2022 (which is when the Protection Against Harassment of Women in the Workplace Act was amended) must involve conduct of an overtly sexual nature to fall within the scope of the law. Actions that take place after the 2022 amendment are covered by the law not only if they are overtly sexual in nature, but also if they are rooted in gender-based discrimination. Let’s see why.

First, let’s look at the definition of ‘harassment’. Prior to January 2022, it was defined to cover “any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours or other verbal or written communication or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or is made a condition for employment”.

This definition was amended in January 2022 by adding the following: “discrimination on basis of gender, which may or may not be sexual in nature, but which may embody a discriminatory and prejudicial mindset or notion, resulting in discriminatory behaviour on basis of gender against the complainant” (Section 2[h][ii] of the Act).

The court interpreted the original definition restrictively, following the reasoning of the first Nadia Naz judgement.

The amendment was made after the 2021 Supreme Court decision in Nadia Naz vs President of Pakistan. This case, which analysed and applied the original, pre-2022 definition of harassment, concluded that the law only covers harassment of an overtly sexual nature.

The 2022 amendment, passed a few months after the judgement, rectified the limitation in the original definition as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Nadia Naz judgement of 2021. The amended definition explicitly includes gender-based discrimination within the meaning of harassment.

The amended definition would not apply retrospectively. The expanded definition, which broadens the scope of the actionable wrong, would only cover actions that take place after the amendment.

But in 2023 the Supreme Court, reviewing the Nadia Naz judgement, held that the original definition was broad enough to include gender-based discrimination. Harassment as originally defined should be interpreted to include conduct that is not overtly sexual in nature but amounts to gender-based discrimination. The Supreme Court declared that the bench’s interpretation of the original definition was too restrictive.

The interpretation in the Nadia Naz judgement on review would be brilliant were it not for the 2022 amendment. By interpreting the original definition to have essentially the same meaning and effect as the 2022 insertion, the Supreme Court implies that the 2022 amendment was redundant. This contradicts a basic principle of statutory interpretation, which requires that each statutory provision should be interpreted to give it a distinct meaning.

It may well be that the 2022 amendment was not needed because the original definition should be interpreted as broadly and purposively as the Supreme Court did in the Nadia Naz judgement on review. But when the legislature amended the definition in 2022 to explicitly cover gender-based discrimination, it also implied that the earlier definition was restrictive, which is why the amendment was needed.

By explicitly expanding the de­­finition, it endorsed the view that the original definition did not cover gender-based discrimination.

The FCC in its recent judgement did the same. The FCC interpreted the original definition restrictively, following the reasoning of the first Nadia Naz judgement. It did not refer to the 2022 amendment, and it did not need to because the incidents involved in the case predated the amendment. The amended definition would not apply to these facts. It would have been more edifying if the FCC had clearly explained this, but lucid, well-written judgements are unfortunately uncommon.

Let’s say, as many have argued, that the FCC should have interpreted the original definition more broadly to include gender-based discrimination. What implication would that have for the current definition of harassment? Such an interpretation would entail that the second part of the definition is redundant because the first part covers conduct embodying gender-based discrimination. Such reasoning would again contradict the principle of statutory interpretation, which says that the legislature does not waste its words.

The FCC decision is deeply flawed, but for another reason. The FCC has not applied its own interpretation properly. The harassment at issue in this case was overtly sexual in nature. The evidence put forward at the earlier stages of the case, before the Islamabad High Court and the ombudsperson, shows that the complainant faced harassment that was unambiguously sexual. It is disturbing that the FCC did not consider this conduct to fall within the scope of the original definition.

Flawed as it is, the FCC has not overruled the 2022 amendment to the law. The expanded definition (Section 2(h)(ii)) still stands, but it will only apply to incidents that took place or are alleged to have taken place after the date of the amendment. Prior incidents will be covered by the original definition, which will be interpreted restrictively.

This clarification is important because after the FCC ruling and the outrage against it, many potential claimants believe that the pervasive gender-based discrimination they currently face at the workplace is not covered by the law. People sitting on workplace harassment committees have told me that their mandate is now restricted to only incidents that are overtly sexual in nature. We must remind them that it is not.

The writer is a lawyer and the author of Progressive Laws In Patriarchal Societies.

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2026

Source: dawn

WHEN railways and factories began transforming 19th-century Europe, the rulers of the Habsburg Empire understood their economic potential. Yet they resisted industrialisation.

Friedrich von Gentz, Metternich’s adviser, explained why: “We do not desire at all that the great masses shall become well-off and independent.” His reasoning ended with a revealing question: “How could we otherwise rule over them?”

The Habsburg rulers were not necessarily ignorant of the economic benefits of technological progress. They feared its political consequences. A more prosperous society might also become more independent, weakening their grip on power.

This historical episode helps explain a persistent puzzle in Pakistan: why do those in power repeatedly choose institutions (rules of the game) and policies that constrain economic progress, even when they too benefit from better alternatives? The answer may lie in the distinction between economic and political returns.

Elites do not necessarily choose arrangements that maximise national income, or even their own immediate economic gains. They also consider how a change might affect their ability to retain power and capture future returns — what we call the political replacement effect in economics.

Technological and institutional changes can expand economic opportunities while simultaneously creating new centres of political power. Incumbents may, therefore, resist changes that threaten their hold on power. The calculation is straightforward. A reform may make the economy larger and even increase the income of existing elites. But if it also raises the probability of their political displacement, or reduces the share of future gains they can command, their expected returns may decline. Under these conditions, elites may rationally prefer an inferior arrangement that preserves their political dominance.

In other words, a smaller pie under a secure scenario may be more attractive than a larger pie with uncertain future distribution.

An economically promising change can redistribute political power.

Pakistan’s recent history offers three institutional and technological choices that are especially revealing.

First is local government. The Constitution requires provinces to devolve political, administrative and financial authority to elected local representatives. Yet successive governments have either delayed local elections or weakened the institutions they create. The largest province, Punjab, last held LG elections a decade ago. Other provinces have also adopted various approaches to limit devolution. KP, for example, recently increased the population threshold for village and neighbourhood councils to reduce the number of councils, potentially weakening representation. In Sindh, transfers to LGs declined from 15.7 per cent of provincial general revenue receipts to just 5.8pc in the 2025-26 budget.

What makes these choices economically questionable? Elected LGs with genuine fiscal and administrative authority can better respond to local needs, improve service delivery, and strengthen accountability. Why, then, resist them?

Because empowered LGs also create political competitors. A mayor controlling development funds and public services can build an independent political constituency. Legislators lose influence over resources that help sustain their electoral networks. Even if improved local governance generates greater prosperity, its political dividends may accrue to someone else.

The second example is fiscal federalism. The seventh NFC award raised provinces’ share of the divisible pool to 57.5pc, with constitutional protection against subsequent reductions. But since then, the federal government has built a parallel fiscal system undermining the very principle of federalism. Petroleum levy collections, which are not shared with provinces, reached Rs1.567 trillion in 2025-26. Provinces were also asked to generate surpluses and, lately, to provide grants to the federal government.

The parallel system may be responding to genuine fiscal pressures, but it preserves fiscal discretion at the centre, despite the constitutional commitment to provincial autonomy. In essence, after the seventh NFC, the provincial share fell without anyone touching the award. The political economy consideration here is that meaningful fiscal autonomy changes the distribution of power. Provinces with independent revenue sources and predictable resources can pursue their own priorities and strengthen their political standing.

But the provinces are no different. While demanding autonomy from Islamabad, they resist transferring meaningful authority and resources to elected LGs. At each tier, those holding resources resist passing them down.

The third example concerns technology: rooftop solar.

Faced with high electricity tariffs, the public began investing in their own power generation. Solar offered consumers cheaper electricity, greater reliability, and reduced dependence on the national grid. Yet policy increasingly moved towards discouraging its adoption.

The government not only imposed a 10pc sales tax on solar panels but, in February, it replaced net metering with net billing for new connections, substantially lowering the compensation for surplus electricity supplied to the grid. A more economically sustainable response would have restructured costly contractual obligations, modernised the grid, and established fair charges for network use.

Why has such adjustment proved so difficult? One explanation is that decentralised electricity generation threatens more than power producers’ revenues. It also weakens an established system through which economic resources, contracts, subsidies, and regulatory discretion are concentrated. These instruments carry financial and political value. Reforming them could improve overall economic performance while reducing the influence of those who currently control them.

These three cases are not identical, but they share a key feature: an economically promising change can redistribute political power, creating incentives for incumbents to resist or dilute it. This is what makes the political replacement argument more powerful than the familiar explanation that elites protect their economic rents. Sometimes they may sacrifice economic gains, including their own, to preserve the political position from which future gains can be secured.

The implication is that Pakistan’s development problem cannot be resolved through better policy advice alone. The harder challenge is creating institutions that reduce the ability of those in power to obstruct changes that might eventually displace them. The stakes extend beyond the current examples. AI is creating new opportunities while challenging existing economic and political hierarchies. Whether or not Pakistan embraces those opportunities will depend largely on how it responds to a technology most capable of redistributing power.

Until the existing calculations change, the country may continue choosing a smaller pie for the sake of a firmer grip.

The writer is an associate professor of economics at the Lahore School of Economics.

www.waqarwadho.com

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2026

Source: dawn