IMG-20230627-WA0008

The economy has undergone tremendous upheaval over the past year, and the public has been trampled by the combined forces of inflation, unemployment, and economic stagnation simultaneously. The country’s debt profile, growth profile, and foreign reserves profile are all cause for absolute and immediate concern. Yet they have taken a back seat over the foregoing period of economic turmoil, playing second fiddle to a class that is mired in political infighting and expanding its privileges.

In such circumstances, many see the situation as increasingly bleak, which is why it is high time for the economy to come to the forefront. However, in such dispiriting circumstances, an even greater cause for concern has emerged: the ad-hoc creation of a Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), which reflects precisely the sort of thinking that has landed the economy in its current state to begin with.

The premise of the SIFC is to sidestep democratic inputs and concentrate decision-making among a select few who may or may not have sufficient economic expertise. It builds on a “one-window operation” logic that operates in parallel to the bulky, inefficient, and ineffectual existing bureaucratic leviathan. The decision-makers now backing this idea will focus on what they deem to be “priority areas”, and shall develop these in concert with “priority countries.” It is stipulated to be “a streamlined interface for investors and remove all the bottlenecks in investments.”  In this sense, one should be wary of the new mantra in town, which is premised on the integration of the economy’s priority sectors with the nomenklatura’s self-assigned areas of concern.

CPEC is not at the crux of this effort, despite the fact that we were always told what a “game changer” it will be. Now we are being presented with another “game changer” in the guise of SIFC. But there is no new game, and no new changer. For this reason, it is unlikely to persuade either foreign or domestic well-wishers to change their reticent investment outlooks. Instead, one sees the repetition of what occurs every decade or so, where the people of Pakistan are spoonfed a slogan, a chamakti laal batti (blinking red light). This sloganeering attitude is what we are seeing in the guise of SIFC. For another ten years, we will hear more and more about the SIFC, but there will not be any public input into the projects, nor will there be any technocratic or meritocratic constitution of the processes behind the SIFC.

In addition, the targets being set, insofar as they are being reported at this early stage, are for “direct jobs for 15 to 20 million people and indirect job opportunities to another 75 to 100 million people in the next four to five years.” These are incalculably exaggerated targets for a country of just 240 million. Even a country of a billion people would be quite reticent to set such high targets, given the scale demanded. On this point, before jumping onto the next chamakti laal batti, shall we not take stock of the previous blinking red light and what we have achieved in that regard until now?

Finally, the economy and security are closely linked, this is true. But this means that security “experts,” insofar as this country can claim to be secure, must leave it to the economic experts to guide decision making in economic affairs, for the national interest, and with accountability for their planning and execution. By contrast, the SIFC seeks to style the security “experts” as the new economic experts. No matter how much they may try to hedge the language, the SIFC cements an economy by the nomenklatura and for the nomenklatura.

This is the natural consequence of a system that has eroded meritocracy and shunned expertise, at the same time that it has rejected the will of the people and the ideals of the Quaid. It is high time we hit the brakes on chamakti laal battis and start to fix the economic system in a totalizing, sincere, and far-sighted manner, with the right brains at the helm, the right people to do the right job, and to be answerable to the people for the job done.

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is Advisor (Economic Affairs and National Development) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »