If mansion owners paid a fair council tax, local authorities wouldn’t be in such a mess | Simon Jenkins

Runwise combines future weather algorithms with a wireless temperature sensor network that speaks to a central control system.

More than 40% of Louisianans aren’t getting enough sleep at night. See parish sleep data.  NOLA.com Powered by WPeMatico

Apparently, the long winning streak of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in Sindh is not due to the party’s popularity in the province, but because there is no other force effective enough to challenge the party’s electoral hold here. But Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) “is still very popular.” 

This is what most political analysts — especially from Punjab and those stationed in Sindh’s multi-ethnic capital Karachi — often posit. I’ll try to address both the perceptions. 

First of all, I find their view (regarding Sindh) rather imbecilic. For every election since 2008, multiple alliances of strange bedfellows have formed in the province to become that ‘effective electoral force’, but none of them have been able to break the PPP’s spell in the province. Why? 

The fact is, popularity alone is never enough to guarantee long winning streaks in elections. Functionality is more important. The PPP is now one of the most functional parties in Sindh, which attracts both the popular vote as well as the pragmatic vote. But, of course, then comes that rhetorical question about Karachi. Why is it so ‘mismanaged’ and ‘ignored’? 

There is no doubt that Karachi faces some major issues. But to suggest that this is so because the PPP does not have a large enough vote-bank in the city is now an outdated view. Karachi’s issues aren’t recent. The roots of its many social, political and economic problems actually lie in the 1980s.

The PPP’s hold over Sindh, despite what some may argue, isn’t because of weak opposition — it is the result of electoral functionality. So why is media analysis often based on perceptions without evidence?

Due to waves of migrations from other provinces of the country (and from Afghanistan) in the 1980s, Karachi’s population began to balloon. This put the city’s resources under tremendous pressure, triggering vicious ethnic violence and corruption.

From 1977 till 1988, Sindh was governed by Gen Ziaul Haq’s military dictatorship, and then by pro-Zia parties. The 1980s’ ethnic violence in Karachi and the rollback of the city’s economy crossed into the 1990s. For the next decade — from 1988 till 1999 — Sindh was governed twice by the PPP and twice by coalitions of anti-PPP outfits. 

Karachi eventually fell into the hands of the Mohajir (later Muttahida) Qaumi Movement (MQM). MQM had enough votes and street power to stall any economic manoeuvres planned for the city, if these were seen by the party as not being in its interest. Also, by the 1990s, cities such as Lahore in Punjab began to compete with Karachi in terms of industrial output, largely due to the security challenges in Karachi.

From 2002 till 2008, Sindh was in the hands of a military regime (Gen Pervez Musharraf) supported by a coalition of pro-Musharraf parties. Apparently, Karachi during this period was ‘getting back on its feet again.’ This was hogwash, really. On May 12, 2007, this farcical perception cracked and many tensions of the past that never went away came screaming to the surface again.

Fifty-eight people died in a single day of violence between ethnic groups, armed gangs, political parties and the security forces. What’s more, the city began to also see the influx of militant Islamists from the northern parts of the country, looking to get their share of the pie in Karachi’s notorious ‘underworld’ universe, which also never went away. 

It is true that, in 2008, when the PPP finally returned to power in Sindh, it was slow to address the city’s many issues, focusing more on the rest of the province. But it is also true that, after 2018, the party began giving the city more attention — especially after MQM broke into factions and the ‘popularity’ of PTI in the city started to erode because it had no clue how to do ‘constituency politics.’ Constituency politics is a vital function in Karachi’s many multi-ethnic constituencies. 

Mammoth cities such as Karachi have mammoth problems. But it would be naive (and maybe even somewhat dishonest) to suggest that the PPP ‘is doing nothing for the city.’ In the last few years, it has been quite active in initiating various developmental projects here, especially after it won the city’s mayorship in 2023.

Now, something about the PTI’s ‘popularity’ that one is constantly reminded of by analysts and vloggers. Those on PTI’s side doing this, is understandable. But more interesting is the way the so-called ‘neutral’ and even anti-PTI analysts and vloggers do it. 

For example, often at the end of a critical tirade against the PTI, one can actually predict that the tirade will end with these words: “Behar haal, iss mein koi shak nahin, PTI aik bohat maqbool jamaat hai [Anyway, there is no doubt that PTI is a very popular party].” I always find this amusing. It is as if, during their tirade, the analysts/vloggers begin to feel guilty. Of what, though? 

Indeed, the PTI did well during the February 2024 elections (under trying circumstances). It received 31.17 percent of the total vote. But this also means over 65 percent of the votes were cast for other parties. Nevertheless, things have moved in such a manner in the last one year that there is every likelihood that PTI’s vote-bank may have lost its shape a bit. 

PTI was always more of a movement than a functional party. And, today, it is not even a functional movement. Also, there has been no recent survey to ‘scientifically’ gauge its ‘popularity’. February 2024 now looks far away in the past. 

It is also possible that the perception of PTI’s ‘continuous popularity’ is the result of ‘feedback loops.’

A 2013 study in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology and a 2023 study in the journal Party Politics describe this as an intense focus on a political figure or movement that can create a feedback loop where media coverage, academic analysis and political discourse all contribute to a heightened sense of the importance of the political figures and movements. This can lead to an over-simplistic and homogenised picture of a political trend. 

Imran Khan and his PTI are in shambles today. But the thing that is keeping them afloat is a ‘popularity’ constructed by feedback loops, in which even those who oppose PTI have become stuck. In the current reality, the party’s electoral pull might actually be loosening.

Anyway, so, should I too end this column with, ‘Behar haal, iss mein koi shak nahin, PTI aik bohat maqbool jamaat hai’?

Published in Dawn, EOS, August 10th, 2025

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Saturday rubbished what he said were “implausible” and “comical” claims by the Indian Air Force chief that the country had shot down five Pakistani fighter jets and one other military aircraft during clashes in May.

The comments are the first such statement by the Indian side three months after its worst military conflict in decades with its neighbour. During the conflict, Pakistan said it downed five Indian planes in air-to-air combat on May 7, later stating that figure as six. India’s highest-ranking general has also acknowledged that its forces suffered losses in the air, but denied losing six aircraft.

Speaking at an event in the southern city of Bengaluru, Indian Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh claimed: “We have at least five fighters confirmed killed, and one large aircraft,” adding that the large aircraft, which could be a surveillance plane, was shot down at a distance of 300 kilometres.

He alleged that most of the Pakistani aircraft were downed by India’s Russian-made S-400 surface-to-air missile system. He cited electronic tracking data as confirmation of the strikes.

Singh did not mention the type of fighter jets that were downed, but claimed that airstrikes also hit an additional surveillance plane and “a few F16” fighters that were parked in hangars at two air bases in Sindh and Punjab. “This is actually the largest ever recorded surface-to-air kill,” he insisted.

Responding to the claims in a post on X, the defence minister said: “The belated assertions made by the Indian Air Force chief regarding alleged destruction of Pakistani aircraft during Operation Sindoor are as implausible as they are ill-timed.

“It is also ironic how senior Indian military officers are being used as the faces of monumental failure caused by strategic shortsightedness of Indian politicians. For three months, no such claims were voiced — while Pakistan, in the immediate aftermath, presented detailed technical briefings to the international media, and independent observers recorded widespread acknowledgment of the loss of multiple Indian aircraft, including Rafales, by sources ranging from world leaders, senior Indian politicians to foreign intelligence assessments.”

Asif said that “not a single Pakistani aircraft was hit or destroyed” by India, adding that Pakistan took out six Indian jets, S400 air defence batteries and unmanned aircraft of India while “swiftly putting several Indian airbases out of action”.

He added that the losses on the Line of Control for Indian armed forces were “disproportionately heavier” as well.

“If the truth is in question, let both sides open their aircraft inventories to independent verification — though we suspect this would lay bare the reality India seeks to obscure. Wars are not won by falsehoods but by moral authority, national resolve and professional competence.

“Such comical narratives, crafted for domestic political expediency, increase the grave risks of strategic miscalculation in a nuclearised environment,” he warned.

The defence minister iterated that every violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would invite “swift, surefire and proportionate response, and responsibility for any ensuing escalation will rest entirely with strategically blind leaders who gamble with South Asia’s peace for fleeting political gains”.

Former envoy Dr Maleeha Lodhi said the Indian air chief’s claim was “laughable”, noting that it took him “several months to count the planes to make this ridiculous assertion!”

Meanwhile, Indian Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said when questioned about the matter: “The question we have after today’s information … when we had such a strong army and we were advancing then under whose pressure did you stop Operation Sindoor?”

American South Asia expert Michael Kugelman opined that “regardless of whether true or not, the timing of these claims, with US-India ties in crisis, is easy to understand.”

Pakistan, with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) primarily operating Chinese-made jets and US F-16s, has previously denied that India downed any aircraft during the May 7-10 fighting between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

New Delhi had previously claimed it had downed “a few planes”. United States President Donald Trump has echoed the figure of “five jets” shot down during the military confrontation, albeit without specifying which side’s craft he was referring to.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has faced scathing criticism from opposition parties for its lack of “political will to fight” during the May clashes and “failures” to prevent the Pahalgam attack.

The May conflict was sparked by New Delhi’s allegations against Islamabad, which were without evidence and strongly refuted by Pakistan, about a deadly attack in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam. After the May 7 combat and tit-for-tat strikes on each other’s airbases, it took American intervention on May 10 for both sides to finally reach a ceasefire.

France’s air chief, General Jerome Bellanger, has previously said that he has seen evidence of the loss of three Indian fighters, including a Rafale. The Indian Air Force has not commented on those claims.

Days after the air combat, The Washington Post, based on visual evidence analysed by experts, reported that at least two French-made Indian fighter aircraft were shot down by the Pakistan Air Force.

According to The Wire, India’s defence attache to Indonesia, Indian Navy Captain Shiv Kumar, while speaking at a seminar in June, acknowledged that the PAF downed the Indian fighters.

During his presentation at the event, Kumar had acknowledged the loss of Indian planes. According to Kumar, Indian fighter jets were “operating under strict political orders from the Modi government not to target Pakistani military installations or air defence systems”, The Wire reported.

“This self-imposed limitation by the government was intended to prevent escalation of conflict in a nuclear environment,” the outlet added, quoting the Indian officer.

India’s intelligence failure was central to the hour-long air battle between Pakistan and India, which led to the downing of Rafale aircraft by the Pakistan Air Force’s J-10 fighters using PL-15s missiles, according to a report.

Reuters interviews with two Indian officials and three of their Pakistani counterparts found that the performance of the Rafale wasn’t the key problem: central to its downing was an Indian intelligence failure concerning the range of the China-made PL-15 missile fired by the J-10 fighter. China and Pakistan are the only countries to operate both J-10s, known as Vigorous Dragons, and PL-15s.

The faulty intelligence gave the Rafale pilots a false sense of confidence that they were out of Pakistani firing distance, which they believed was only around 150km, the Indian officials said, referring to the widely cited range of PL-15’s export variant.

“We ambushed them,” the PAF official said, adding that Islamabad conducted an electronic warfare assault on Delhi’s systems in an attempt to confuse Indian pilots. Indian officials dispute the effectiveness of those efforts.

“The Indians were not expecting to be shot at,” said Justin Bronk, air warfare expert at London’s Royal United Services Institute think-tank. “And the PL-15 is clearly very capable at long range.” The PL-15 that hit the Rafale was fired from around 200km away, according to Pakistani officials, and even farther according to Indian officials. That would make it among the longest-range air-to-air strikes recorded.

Hosted in 2025 by New Mexico’s Santa Fe International Film Festival, the annual impact list Screenwriters to Watch, which identifies notable up-and-coming film screenwriters, is seeking submissions for 2025. Past honorees include Nora Garrett (“After the Hunt”), Julian Breece (“Rustin”), Marcus Gardley (“The Color Purple”), Justin Kuritzkes (“Challengers”), Samuel D. Hunter (“The Whale”), Stefani Robinson…