Pakistan

The study, conducted by the Women’s Regional Network, suggested the use of regional tribunals and “community conversations” as possible mechanisms for exploring women’s experiences, fears and contributions, and for strengthening their often unrecognized contributions to justice, peace and social reintegration.

A panel of scholars and analysts who have helped manage U.S. relations in South Asia will join USIP’s Moeed Yusuf to examine these and related issues. They will assess the Pathankot attack and past crises, including roles the United States can play in mediating them. The discussion will address changes in the India-Pakistan relationship since the 2008 attack by Pakistani guerrillas on Mumbai, and prospects for regional relations as the two sides respond to Pathankot and debate the renewal of a comprehensive dialogue.

The USIP study by University of Maryland Assistant Professor Madiha Afzal found that Pakistan’s education system, rather than preparing students to participate in a pluralistic and democratic society, often propagates intolerant attitudes and radicalism. The concern is not limited to private seminaries known as madrassas, which have attracted the greatest share of concern from international policymakers, but also extends to the public school system, where most Pakistanis are educated.

Since the Peshawar school attack, which killed more than 150 people, including 134 children, the Pakistani government has pledged to make this the turning point, targeting terrorists of all types. A number of major steps have already been taken. 

Ties between India and Pakistan showed tentative signs of warming in late 2013 and early 2014. But optimistic calls for trade liberalization and diplomatic dialogue have given way to escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors over how to address terrorism and the disputed territory of Kashmir. Foreign secretary-level talks have been scuttled, and exchanges of fire left at least 10 people dead and thousands displaced along the Line of Control in late December and early January.

In the wake of the brutal attack that day, Pakistani civilian and military policymakers came together to formulate a new National Action Plan, making fresh pledges of concerted action against the full host of militant groups operating within Pakistan.

The new security agenda has led to a controversial amendment of the Pakistani constitution to institute new military-run courts for terrorist suspects. Capital punishment has resumed. New initiatives seek to curtail terrorist financing and media access. And combat actions continue in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

Sectarian divisions are growing in Pakistan. Contemporary public opinion surveys suggest these religious communal identities are hardening and violent militant organizations – drawn primarily but not exclusively from the Sunni Deobandi tradition – are increasingly targeting rival religious minorities, killing thousands across the country in attacks over the past decade.

Violence from terrorism, secessionist insurgency, sectarian conflict and ethnic turf wars is escalating in Pakistan’s megacities. Yet while the police force and its personnel remain ill-prepared and poorly equipped to meet the challenge, even skeptics recognize that police and law enforcement are the single most important institution in facing Pakistan’s counterterrorism challenge.

The Pakistani civilian government is closing in on its one-year mark in office. The government, known for its business and economy-friendly outlook, continues to deal with tough economic, development and energy challenges that have hindered fast-paced recovery. While economic growth forecasts project improvement, a number of key reforms in the tax structures, privatization, civil service and the like remain elusive.

The Pakistani state continues to face difficult development challenges. Implementing a tighter fiscal policy to meet the conditions set under the IMF's $6.6 billion loan, the government of Pakistan has reduced its development budget. While the link between development and stabilization is often made, seldom do we expand the discussion of ‘development’ to the social sector. This arena tends to become the first casualty in tight fiscal environments with underappreciated repercussions for long-term stability of a country. Do we need a rethink on the social sector-stabilization link?