□Defend the Homeland. Develop the People. Discipline Public Expenditure□
BāBā-Tāl is already at the Eyrie when I arrive. A steaming mug rests between his hands. Outside the window, Margalla sits quietly beneath the morning sky.
“Bacha!” He glances at me, then takes a sip.
“Tell me something… when the government says the economy is getting better, whose pocket do they look into?”
He pauses. Stirs his tea. The little brass bells on his navy-blue robe give a faint chin-chin as he shifts in his chair.
“Hmm… the figures may be improving, Bacha. I’m not arguing with figures. But what about the fellow buying flour for his family? Has his morning become any easier?”
Another sip. A brief silence.
“And this business of political stability…” He looks towards the window. “Can you make people trust one another by ordering them to stand in line? Or does trust grow when people feel they have a place in the country they call their own?”
He lets the questions sit between us. No lecture. No verdict.
“Tell me, Bacha… if the books begin to balance while the people are still struggling, should we celebrate, complain, or perhaps ask a few more questions?”
He smiles, reaches for his mug, and leaves me to think.
Foxy is waiting downstairs. The kettle needs another round. And Pakistan, as usual, has given us plenty to talk about.
Pakistan stands at a difficult intersection. On one side lies the pursuit of economic stabilisation, supported by the International Monetary Fund’s Extended Fund Facility. On the other lies a deepening political confrontation that threatens institutional confidence and the continuity of economic policy.
The two challenges cannot be examined in isolation. They interact, sometimes reinforcing one another, and their combined consequences reach far beyond government offices and financial markets. They reach the household struggling with its monthly bills, the graduate searching for a first job, the small business trying to remain competitive, and the family deciding which essential expense must wait until next month.
Pakistan’s economic indicators have shown signs of improvement. An IMF staff-level agreement announced in October 2026 could unlock approximately $1.21 billion in financing, subject to the Fund’s Executive Board approval. The proposed financing is connected to reviews under Pakistan’s existing lending arrangements. It represents an opportunity for further financial support, not proof that the country’s structural economic problems have been resolved.
Foreign-exchange reserves, fiscal management, and external financing arrangements have been important elements of the stabilisation effort. These developments matter. A country facing external payment pressures cannot disregard its reserves, fiscal accounts, or access to international financing. Economic discipline is necessary, and financial breathing space can provide an opportunity to undertake reforms that would otherwise be difficult.
But breathing space is not the same as a cure.
The more important question is what Pakistan intends to do with that space. Will it use the opportunity to expand productive capacity, diversify exports, improve public services, create employment, and build a broader tax base? Or will stabilisation remain an exercise in meeting immediate obligations while the structural weaknesses of the economy continue largely unchanged?
The distinction is fundamental.
Growth forecasts, inflation readings, reserve levels, and fiscal balances must be examined against the lived experience of citizens. If the national accounts improve but households continue to lose purchasing power, if businesses remain reluctant to invest, and if young people cannot find productive work, the task of economic transformation remains unfinished.
Pakistan’s exports have long been concentrated in a relatively narrow range of goods, particularly textiles. Its tax base remains limited, investment has struggled to reach the levels needed for sustained transformation, and the country has repeatedly relied on external financing to manage financial pressures.
These structural problems cannot be resolved through borrowing alone. Nor can they be solved by compressing development expenditure indefinitely.
The objective must be to move from stabilisation towards productive and inclusive growth. That means creating the conditions in which businesses can invest, workers can acquire useful skills, agriculture and industry can become more productive, and Pakistani products can compete in wider markets.
Above all, it means treating the people of Pakistan as participants in economic development rather than merely as the recipients of its costs.
The political developments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have added another dimension to Pakistan’s difficulties.
On October 11, 2026, the President promulgated emergency and governor’s rule measures in the province under Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution. Parliament subsequently approved the measures in a joint sitting on October 15.
The federal government has justified its intervention by citing deteriorating security conditions and alleged shortcomings in the provincial administration’s cooperation against militancy. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf has challenged the political legitimacy and constitutionality of the intervention.
These are consequential developments. Their justification must be assessed against verified evidence, the relevant constitutional provisions, and the official record. Parliamentary approval is a significant constitutional step, but it does not remove the need for scrutiny of necessity, proportionality, implementation, and the effects on provincial autonomy and public confidence.
Pakistan’s security challenges are real. The state has a responsibility to protect citizens, confront militancy, and ensure that institutions cooperate effectively against violence. No political party should be above the law, and no provincial or federal administration should treat public safety as a matter of political convenience.
But security is not the only constitutional responsibility. The exercise of extraordinary powers also calls for scrutiny, transparency, accountability, and respect for the safeguards governing public authority.
The federal government must explain and substantiate its position. The opposition must be able to raise legitimate objections through lawful political and judicial channels. Allegations should be investigated fairly, and political disagreement should not automatically be equated with disloyalty.
The central question is whether these measures will improve security while preserving institutional trust—or whether they will deepen a confrontation that becomes increasingly difficult to resolve.
The answer must be found in evidence, constitutional procedure, implementation, and outcomes.
Pakistan has experienced repeated cycles of confrontation between governments and their opponents. Such cycles consume political energy, undermine continuity, and divert attention from the everyday responsibilities of governing.
A country cannot afford to spend all its time managing political crises while the problems of education, healthcare, employment, energy, taxation, and industrial competitiveness accumulate.
Political uncertainty can make investment decisions more difficult. Businesses require reasonably predictable policies, functioning institutions, and confidence that contracts and regulations will be administered fairly. Investors may delay projects when uncertainty makes long-term planning harder.
Economic hardship can also intensify political discontent. When employment opportunities are scarce and essential expenses consume a growing share of household income, frustration becomes understandable. Political parties may then channel that frustration into protests and confrontation.
Neither relationship is automatic. Political calm alone does not guarantee prosperity, and economic difficulty does not inevitably produce political instability. But prolonged uncertainty can reinforce existing weaknesses.
This is the dangerous cycle Pakistan must break.
Economic reforms require public confidence and political continuity. Political stability requires institutions that citizens consider credible and responsive. Both require an administration capable of delivering practical improvements in people’s lives.
The answer is not to eliminate disagreement. Disagreement is part of democratic politics. The answer is to ensure that disagreement does not paralyse the institutions responsible for public welfare.
Pakistan needs a constitutional framework in which governments can govern, opposition parties can scrutinise, courts can function independently, and public institutions can fulfil their responsibilities without being treated as instruments of permanent political warfare.
THE QUR’ANIC PRINCIPLE: STRENGTH, RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUST
The Qur’an provides an important foundation for thinking about public responsibility.
Allah commands in Surah An-Nisa:
“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice.”
— The Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa (4:58).
Public office is an amanah—a trust. It is not private property, a family inheritance, or an entitlement to privileges without accountability.
The principle applies to every level of government and every institution exercising public authority. It applies to the management of public money, the administration of justice, the protection of citizens, and the delivery of essential services.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad [Peace and blessings be upon him] said:
“Each of you is a shepherd, and each of you is responsible for his flock.”
— Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 7138; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1829.
Responsibility follows authority. Those who make decisions affecting millions of people must answer for the consequences of those decisions.
This principle leads us to a wider question about national priorities. What should a responsible state protect first? What should it build? And how should it ensure that public resources serve the nation rather than excessive administrative privilege?
At this point, BāBā-Tāl returns to the conversation.
“Bacha! Do you remember the Qur’anic command about preparing strength?”
He waits for my answer, then opens the Qur’an.
“And prepare against them whatever force you are able of power and of steeds of war, by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows them. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
— The Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Anfal (8:60), Sahih International translation.
He pauses, takes a sip, and looks towards the window.
“Bacha, a homeland must be defended. But what, exactly, are we defending it for?”
He lets the question remain unanswered for a moment.
“For the people who live in it, of course. For their homes, their children, their dignity, their opportunities, and their future.”
DEFENCE. DEFENCE. DEFENCE.
Let us be clear about the argument.
Pakistan needs the capacity to protect its sovereignty, defend its borders, deter aggression, and safeguard its citizens. National security cannot be treated as an afterthought. A country must take its defence responsibilities seriously, and its security requirements must be assessed by the competent authorities in light of genuine threats and national needs.
The command in Surah Al-Anfal 8:60 concerns preparedness and strength. In its original context, it refers to preparing for conflict; it is not a direct instruction about modern budget percentages. Applying its principle to contemporary national planning requires careful reasoning rather than claiming that the verse specifies a particular fiscal formula.
In our age, national defence includes personnel, equipment, training, technology, logistics, industrial capability, and the capacity to sustain essential systems. It also requires competent people, scientific knowledge, technical expertise, and an industrial foundation.
Heavy Mechanical Complex at Taxila can serve in this discussion as a symbol of Pakistan’s heavy-engineering and defence-industrial ambitions. It represents the importance of having the capacity to manufacture, maintain, and develop industrial capabilities rather than depending entirely on others.
But the larger argument is not confined to a particular complex or product.
Defence must stand at the forefront of our national priorities. Defence, defence, defence: the repetition is deliberate. It expresses the first responsibility of protecting the homeland in which the nation must live.
Yet we must also understand what that priority is intended to protect.
A secure homeland provides the space in which schools can educate, hospitals can treat patients, businesses can operate, and young people can build their futures. Defence safeguards the conditions in which national life can continue.
The walls of a home must be safe and strong. Without security, the people inside remain vulnerable. A family cannot enjoy the peace of its home if its protection is neglected. In the same way, a nation must possess the strength to defend its sovereignty, territory, and citizens before it can confidently pursue its aspirations.
This is why the defence of Pakistan must remain at the forefront of national priorities.
The question is not whether Pakistan should abandon defence in favour of development. It should not be presented as a choice between the two.
The question is how to protect the country while ensuring that the people within its borders have the education, healthcare, employment, and productive opportunities needed to sustain its future.
A strong defence establishment and a capable, educated, healthy population are not necessarily competing objectives. They can reinforce one another when national resources are planned responsibly.
Immediately alongside defence in our national priorities must stand three indispensable responsibilities: education, healthcare, and employment.
Education develops knowledge and judgment. Healthcare protects the lives and capabilities of citizens. Employment allows people to use their skills, support their families, contribute to the economy, and live with dignity.
These are not decorative additions to national development. They are among its foundations.
A child who cannot obtain a sound education may struggle to compete in an increasingly technological economy. A young person without employable skills may remain excluded from productive work. A family unable to afford basic healthcare may lose income, savings, and opportunity. A country that fails to develop its human capital risks wasting the potential of an entire generation.
Pakistan therefore needs to examine whether a substantially greater and more effective share of public resources should be directed towards education, healthcare, and employment-generating development.
This is a policy proposal, not a claim that the Qur’an prescribes an equal allocation or that a particular percentage would automatically solve these problems. The precise fiscal choices must be supported by budget analysis, evidence of need, and an honest assessment of available resources.
The objective should be measurable improvement.
Education spending should help children learn, complete their schooling, and acquire useful knowledge and skills. Technical and vocational training should connect more effectively with employers and the changing requirements of the economy. Healthcare expenditure should improve access, affordability, prevention, and the quality of treatment. Employment policy should support productive enterprises, entrepreneurship, and the creation of sustainable jobs.
Young people must have a meaningful voice in shaping these policies.
They should not be invited into public life merely to applaud speeches or fill the ranks of political rallies. Their experience and ideas should inform discussions about educational quality, digital skills, artificial intelligence, technical training, entrepreneurship, and the future of work.
Youth consultations, transparent reporting on employment programmes, partnerships between educational institutions and employers, and fair access to opportunities can help make policy more responsive.
A young population does not automatically become a demographic dividend. Its potential depends on education, health, skills, opportunity, and the quality of institutions that enable people to contribute.
Pakistan’s defence protects the homeland. Its investment in education, healthcare, and employment helps strengthen the people who inhabit and sustain it.
Neither responsibility should be used as an excuse to neglect the other.
BāBā-Tāl sets his mug down.
“Bacha, there is one more question. Before asking the people to make sacrifices, have those managing the public purse examined their own expenses?”
He pauses.
“Why should unnecessary luxury enjoy protection when essential public needs are waiting?”
This question belongs in the national budget debate.
Pakistan must examine excessive administrative overheads, unnecessary duplication, wasteful official expenditure, and luxurious privileges that cannot be justified by public service requirements.
The purpose is not to weaken essential administration or deny officials the resources they genuinely need to perform their duties. Nor should arbitrary cuts undermine public services, professional competence, or national security.
The purpose is to distinguish necessary expenditure from avoidable extravagance.
Every department should be able to explain its spending. Public procurement should be transparent. Administrative structures should be reviewed for duplication. Official vehicles, residences, travel, ceremonies, and other discretionary costs should be assessed against clear standards of necessity and public value.
Savings should be reported transparently and directed towards clearly identified national priorities.
A reduction in unnecessary expenditure does not automatically create a sufficient budget for education or healthcare. The actual savings must be calculated, verified, and compared with the scale of unmet needs. But administrative discipline can help ensure that public resources are used more responsibly.
There is also a question of public confidence.
When citizens are asked to accept difficult economic adjustments, they have a legitimate interest in knowing whether those exercising authority are subject to comparable standards of accountability and restraint.
Fiscal discipline must therefore apply to the administration as well as to the household. The government cannot ask the public to accept sacrifice while treating unnecessary official luxury as beyond scrutiny.
The principle is straightforward:
Protect essential defence expenditure. Strengthen education, healthcare, and employment-generating investment. Curb waste and unjustified administrative extravagance.
DEFENCE FIRST. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIAL. EXTRAVAGANCE UNDER SCRUTINY.
WHAT PAKISTAN MUST CHANGE
These priorities must be translated into a coherent economic programme.
First, Pakistan must broaden its productive base. Greater export diversification, competitive agriculture, higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven enterprises, and a healthier environment for smaller businesses are necessary for sustainable growth.
Second, the tax system must become broader and fairer. Public finances cannot remain dependent on placing disproportionate burdens on already taxed sectors while economically powerful interests escape equivalent scrutiny.
Third, energy-sector reform must address inefficiencies, financial losses, and the burden of expensive power on households and industry. Reform should improve reliability and competitiveness rather than merely rearrange costs.
Fourth, investment in human capital must become a measurable national objective. Education, healthcare, nutrition, teacher training, vocational skills, and opportunities for young people should be assessed by outcomes rather than announcements.
Fifth, public expenditure must be reviewed for its economic and social return. Fiscal discipline matters, but indiscriminate cuts that undermine education, health, and productive capacity may weaken the foundations of future growth.
Sixth, defence requirements must be assessed responsibly against the country’s security environment and long-term capabilities. Essential security needs should not be confused with avoidable administrative luxury, and the protection of the homeland should remain connected to the welfare of its people.
Finally, Pakistan needs political conditions that permit reforms to continue beyond individual governments and electoral cycles.
A meaningful political reset does not require every party to agree on every question. It requires agreement on the constitutional rules by which disagreement is managed.
The government and opposition need credible channels of dialogue. Security concerns must be addressed through evidence-based cooperation. Allegations of unlawful conduct should be examined through lawful procedures. Courts must be able to perform their functions independently, and political disputes should not become a substitute for governing.
Where detention, prosecution, or restrictions on political activity are involved, due process and judicial independence remain essential. Equally, political status should not provide immunity from legitimate legal accountability.
The objective should not be the permanent victory of one faction or the permanent exclusion of another. It should be a political system in which citizens can express their choices, institutions can fulfil their constitutional responsibilities, and governments can change without threatening the continuity of the state.
Pakistan needs a constitutional consensus on security, economic reform, democratic competition, and responsible public expenditure.
Such a consensus would not eliminate political rivalry. It would help prevent rivalry from consuming the resources, time, and public confidence needed to build a stronger country.
The tea has grown cold. Foxy’s mustard-yellow bonnet catches the morning light downstairs.
BāBā-Tāl turns towards me.
“Bacha, a budget tells us what a government intends to pay for. But it also tells us what it is prepared to postpone.”
He pauses, then continues.
“Defend the homeland. Educate its children. Care for its sick. Give its young people a fair chance to work. And before spending the public’s money on unnecessary luxuries, ask whether the people who earned that money are being served properly.”
He reaches for the kettle.
“Do not weaken what protects the country. Do not neglect the people for whom the country exists. And do not waste what belongs to both.”
The brass bells give a final, faint chin-chin.
Perhaps this is the balance Pakistan needs: defence at the forefront of national priorities, education, healthcare, and employment treated as indispensable responsibilities, and administrative extravagance subjected to scrutiny.
The country must protect its borders, but it must also build the human capabilities that allow it to flourish within them. It must maintain fiscal discipline, but not mistake the reduction of public expenditure for progress in itself. It must pursue economic reform, but measure success by the opportunities and dignity that reform creates.
Pakistan has people with talent, enterprise, resilience, and the capacity to contribute. What is required is a sustained commitment to security, productive investment, responsible government, and the fair use of public resources.
The final test is not simply whether the national accounts balance or whether political authority remains secure. It is whether the country becomes more capable of defending itself, educating its children, caring for its people, creating employment, and offering its next generation a future worth working for.
Defence protects the homeland. Human development strengthens the nation. Responsible expenditure helps sustain both.
That is not a competition between priorities. It is a national responsibility.
POETEARS — Coined by S. T. Hejazi[ Where poetry becomes tears, and tears become poetry.]
First, guard our home; its walls must stand secure,
Then let its children learn, its sick find cure.
Strong borders guard the lives that make us whole,
A nation must defend both land and soul.
■■■