Govt denies PTI's claims on Bushra's health
The Punjab Home Department on Saturday categorically denied a report published in UK online newspaper The Independent about the "inhumane" treatment being meted out to PTI Patron-in-Chief Imran Khan and his spouse Bushra Bibi during their incarceration, stating that both husband and wife were "receiving full legal entitlements".
While speaking to the British newspaper, Zulfiqar Ali Bukhari, a close aide to Imran, said the PTI founding chairman and his wife had been subjected to "psychological" torment in prison. Bibi was "gravely ill", he said, and "fainted in prison" due to the heat nearly two weeks ago.
Bukhari told The Independent that even the water supplied to Bibi for ablutions had "got mud and sand and dirt inside of it, purposely."
In January, Khan and Bibi were sentenced to 14 and seven years in prison, respectively, in the £190 reference.
Responding to the article, the Punjab Home department stated that both Khan and Bibi were receiving "full legal entitlements" in jail.
In a statement, it termed the claims made in the British online newspaper as "baseless, politically charged and factually incorrect".
The Punjab Home department maintained that both Khan and Bibi had been provided Class-A jail facilities and had access to uninterrupted electricity without any load-shedding. The department added that they undergo daily medical check-ups and receive full medical support.
The statement further noted that food was being served in line with their personal preferences, while legal and family visits were allowed in accordance with court orders. Both detainees have remained in the same cell since their arrival and have not been moved or isolated, it said.
Terming the report an attempt to "mislead global audiences," the Punjab Home department emphasised that Pakistan upholds prisoner rights in line with legal and humanitarian standards.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
13 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Irish rappers Kneecap perform controversial Glastonbury set
GLASTONBURY: Irish rap trio Kneecap took aim at UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer during a defiant performance Saturday at Britain's Glastonbury festival, which also saw Britpop legends Pulp wow fans with a surprise show. Kneecap has made headlines in recent months with their pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel stance. One of their members has been charged with a 'terror' offence for allegedly supporting Hezbollah, leading Starmer and other politicians to call for them to be dropped from the line up. In front of thousands of fans, many waving Palestinian flags, Kneecap led the crowd in chanting abuse about Starmer. 'Glastonbury, I'm a free man', said member Liam O'Hanna, who appeared in court earlier this month accused of having displayed a Hezbollah flag while saying 'Up Hamas, Up Hezbollah' after a video resurfaced of a London concert last year. The Iran-backed Lebanese force Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas are banned in the UK, and it is an offence to express support for them. O'Hanna, known by his stage name Mo Chara, has denied the charge. 'This situation can be quite stressful but it's minimal compared to what the Palestinian people are (facing),' said O'Hanna, wearing his trademark keffiyah. O'Hanna also gave 'a shout out' to Palestine Action Group, which interior minister Yvette Cooper announced last week would become a banned group under the Terrorism Act of 2000. Fellow band member DJ Provai wore a t-shirt dedicated to the campaign group, whose prohibition comes after its activists broke into a British Royal Air Force base and vandalised two planes. 'Playing characters' Before Kneecap took to the stage, rap punk duo Bob Vylan led the crowd in chants of 'Death, death to the IDF', a reference to the Israeli Defence Forces. Israel's embassy to the UK said it was 'deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric' in a post on X following the event. 'It raises serious concerns about the normalisation of extremist language and the glorification of violence,' it said, calling for festival organisers, artists and UK officials to denounce the remark. 'Kaanta Lagaa girl': Indian actress Shefali Jariwala passes away at 42 Local police said they were assessing videos of comments made by both groups to decide whether any offences may have been committed, UK media reported. Formed in 2017, Kneecap is no stranger to controversy. To their fans they are daring provocateurs who stand up to the establishment; to their detractors they are dangerous extremists. Their Irish and English lyrics are filled with references to drugs, they repeatedly clashed with the UK's previous Conservative government and have vocally opposed British rule in Northern Ireland. The group apologised this year after a 2023 video emerged appearing to show one singer calling for the death of British Conservative MPs. Two MPs have been murdered in Britain in the past nine years and many of them worry about their safety. But Kneecap deny the terrorism charge and say the video featuring the Hezbollah flag has been taken out of context. Asked whether he regretted waving it, and other comments caught on camera, Chara told the Guardian in an interview published Friday: 'Why should I regret it? It was a joke – we're playing characters.' 'They're one of the only bands here that are actually preaching about Palestine,' said Jeffries, wearing an Irish tricolour balaclava. Glastonbury rejects criticism Since O'Hanna was charged, the group has been pulled from a slew of summer gigs, including a Scottish festival appearance and various performances in Germany. But Glastonbury organisers defied Starmer who had said it was not 'appropriate' for Kneecap to perform at Glastonbury, one of the country's biggest and most famous music festivals. 'People that don't like the politics of the event can go somewhere else,' Michael Eavis, co-founder of the festival said in an article published in a free newspaper for festival-goers. Public broadcaster the BBC faced pressure not to air the concert. In a statement Saturday, a spokesperson for the broadcaster said the performance would not be shown live but would likely be available on-demand afterwards. Pulp, led by Jarvis Cocker, had fans bouncing to '90s anthem 'Common People' after being listed on the lineup as 'Patchwork'. 'Sorry to the people who were expecting Patchwork,' the frontman joked. Headline acts at the festival which finishes Sunday include Neil Young and Olivia Rodrigo, with other highlights including Charli XCX and Rod Stewart.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The day after doctrine: Russia's nuclear dilemma & the South Asian precedent
On 3 June, the Daily Mail ran a headline that many dismissed as melodramatic, but few could ignore: 'Putin knows a nuclear revenge attack will force Ukraine's surrender. These are the four ways he'd strike... and we're powerless to stop this holocaust.' Quoting Col Richard Kemp, a former British commander in Afghanistan, the piece imagined multiple escalation scenarios where Russia, cornered by battlefield setbacks and deep strategic losses, might resort to tactical nuclear use. The framing may have sounded like tabloid frenzy but it struck a chord with the evolving anxiety in the West: that nuclear deterrence, as traditionally conceived, is disintegrating. That tactical nuclear use, long treated as a taboo, is now entering the realm of possibility — not by miscalculation or accident, but as a calculated tool of escalation management. That the post-Hiroshima threshold is not merely at risk but already structurally breached. Ukraine's deep-strike campaign against the air leg of Russia's nuclear triad marks more than a tactical success; it is a doctrinal rupture. A claimed 20 per cent degradation of Russia's strategic long-range fleet, achieved using low-cost drones and remote-inserted assets, pierced directly into the Soviet legacy posture. This wasn't a battlefield blow, it was strategic. It signalled that a top-tier nuclear state has failed to protect its second-strike assets from sub-strategic encroachment. The world has sleepwalked into a new nuclear reality. Technically, Russia's 2020 declared deterrence doctrine has been breached. If 'critical military infrastructure' includes nuclear-capable bombers and their launch sites, then the threshold for retaliation was crossed. But enforcement isn't automatic, it's political. The absence of response so far can only be attributed to structural hesitation or political calibration. Strategic restraint remains a possibility, if Moscow still calculates long-term positional gain rooted in the attritional phase of its war doctrine. More likely, however, is operational unreadiness. Few of Russia's tactical nuclear platforms are both survivable and deployable under current battlefield conditions. Doctrinal hesitation seems less convincing. Had the strikes carried a NATO signature, escalation might already have occurred. But the "Ukrainian" label, even if nominal, offers Moscow political cover to absorb, for now. But the SBU's operation revealed more than Ukrainian capability; it exposed the fragility of the triad's symmetry. The air leg now appears a soft, centralised, and non-survivable underbelly. If the calculus for escalation is grounded in survivability, then Russia and other nuclear nations face a strategic imbalance. Submarines and ICBMs must now carry the entire burden of escalation credibility. That shift has consequences far beyond Ukraine. It fractures the predictability of nuclear thresholds. It dissolves the assumptions underpinning INF and New START. It redefines the sub-strategic space under a nuclear horizon. Yet, deterrence doesn't survive on ambiguity. It must survive impact. A tactical Russian nuclear strike — even a single sub-kiloton yield, battlefield-contained use — would not be about battlefield outcomes, but reestablishing doctrinal red lines. But the fallout would not remain in theatre. It would globalise. For China, this would be doctrinally liberating. The American Indo-Pacific Command's persistent theatre-posturing — especially its simulated decapitation 'left-of-launch' scenarios against mainland targets — already pressures Beijing to shorten its response timeline. A Russian precedent would remove the final moral hesitations. It would rationalise tactical nuclear signalling as legitimate escalation management, not taboo. Expect China to invest in regionalised, non-strategic nuclear options designed to deny US naval or ISR dominance around Taiwan — and to validate 'first countervalue, then counterforce' as a pre-emptive logic, not a reactive one. But the deeper detonation, however, may occur in South Asia. India's doctrinal drift away from 'No First Use' — through both ambiguity and posture — is already incentivising Chinese and Pakistani 'use-it-or-lose-it' anxieties. India's alignment with Israeli precision warfare and American surgical decapitation has fostered a belief that strategic risk can be managed through deniable, calibrated strikes. But unlike Tel Aviv or Washington, New Delhi operates within a regional theatre defined by compressed warning timelines, low tolerance for ambiguity, and adversaries conditioned for reflex. This borrowed strategic grammar, when applied to a nuclear dyad like Pakistan, risks translating Western hubris into subcontinental catastrophe. If Russia demonstrates that tactical nuclear use can be decoupled from strategic Armageddon, then Pakistan will finally possess a template to formalise the battlefield nuclear doctrine it has long reserved but never operationalised. The full logic of NASR — once a deterrent symbol, now a potential tripwire — will become active: no more a signal but a standing battlefield option. The danger is that Pakistan's ROEs will evolve past Riposte and into deterrence-by-interdiction. Any visible IBG buildup near the border, or persistent scavenging for sub-strategic manoeuvre space under the nuclear ceiling, may trigger a counter-concentration strike before hostilities formally begin. Unlike Russia or China, Pakistan doesn't operate behind oceans or with redundancy. It operates with existential immediacy. It cannot afford to absorb. Its threshold is not calibrated in megatons, but in minutes. The United States, meanwhile, will face a strategic reversal. For decades, it managed nuclear escalation through centralised alliance structures and deterrence hierarchies. But a likely Russian breach, especially if absorbed by the West without proportional response, would flatten that structure. It would reveal that nuclear use can be absorbed, normalised, and locally managed. That is not deterrence resilience; it is signalling failure. The Cold War built nuclear norms through symmetry, transparency, and globalised fear. The new reality is asymmetrical, obscured, and psychologically decoupled. Escalation thresholds are being reinterpreted in regional dialects. Deterrence is being broken not in theory, but in precedent. For the first time in history, if a nuclear strike occurs outside superpower initiation, in a contested theatre, by a major power struggling to retain parity, then Washington's entire nuclear architecture — based on managed escalation, centralised decision nodes, and predictability — would fracture. The gatekeeping function of American deterrence would be voided. Allies would begin to hedge. Adversaries would begin to test. But if Russia absorbs these Ukrainian sabotage and continues the war conventionally, the implications may be deeper still. That would confirm a precedent even more subversive than retaliation: that a nuclear power can suffer strategic degradation without escalation. That the air leg of its deterrent can be degraded, mocked, and exploited without cost. That the bluff can be called — and nothing happens. That would rewrite the global deterrence script in real time. In such a scenario, for China, the lesson would not be symmetrical. It would be inverse. The Taiwan scenario would evolve past porcupine defences and passive deterrence. Taipei's planners may assume they can strike Chinese missile bases or early-warning nodes in a prolonged attritional campaign without triggering a nuclear response. Whether true or not, that assumption itself would be destabilising. If a top-tier nuclear state can't protect its second-strike assets, then deterrence must be made more reflexive, more automated, more decoupled from politics. China's command-and-control systems — already shifting toward dual-use ambiguity — may become hair-trigger by necessity. Meanwhile, the PLA's own deterrence posture will face renewed pressure. If Russia cannot secure its bombers, can China secure its rail-mobile launchers? Expect a doctrinal pivot: from posture-by-denial to posture-by-pre-emption. Thresholds will tighten, not widen. Response timelines will compress. And the pressure to demonstrate readiness, before a shot is fired, will grow exponentially. For Pakistan, Russia's restraint would be a warning, not reassurance. It would reveal the limits of deterrence signalling in the face of deniable strikes. If restraint buys degradation, then restraint must be shortened. Deterrence posture would move from 'second-strike assuredness' to 'first-strike necessity.' Tactical nuclear use may become essential to restore credibility. For the United States, Russia's non-response would appear as strategic victory — but only briefly. It would signal that nuclear impunity is now negotiable. It would not matter that NATO ISR assisted the Ukrainian operation. That detail would be strategically irrelevant. What would matter will be this: Ukraine has demonstrated that nuclear deterrence is no longer the exclusive domain of superpowers. Escalatory logic is being localised. Sub-strategic space is being democratised. That is the real rupture. The West no longer gatekeeps the escalatory script — it only reacts to it. So, the choice is stark. Strike and trigger the world's first precedent for tactical nuclear signalling in a modern battlefield, with ripple effects across every nuclear flashpoint from Kaliningrad to Kashmir. Or absorb and allow the world to infer that nuclear doctrine can be breached without consequence. That deterrence is a decaying art, not a governing science. This choice is starker still because India and Pakistan are sleepwalking through a transformation in nuclear logic without corresponding public debate, institutional preparedness, or political mechanisms. Parliamentary oversight is absent; military wargaming remains siloed; and civilian elites continue to treat doctrine as a legacy relic, not a living architecture. As thresholds dissolve and deterrence becomes theatre-specific, the region's opacity is no longer stabilising — it is actively dangerous. Without transparent review of red lines, retaliation postures, or escalation ladders, South Asia may become the world's first nuclear region where deterrence fails not due to intention — but inertia. A few days ago, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio remarked: 'If it weren't for the US-Russia ties in 1961, the world could have collapsed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.' The world learnt many lessons from those 13 days. Doctrines were developed, safeguards installed, hotlines opened. India seems to have learned nothing from that even after 63 years. It, perhaps, cannot. This is the country that 'accidentally' fired a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile into Pakistan in March 2022. A Russian-engineered P-800 Oniks, rebranded as BrahMos, went off-course and landed deep inside a nuclear-armed neighbour. No heads rolled. No systems reviewed. Just a sorry scapegoating at IAF. What other nuclear power in the world could have done this without consequences? In 2010, a Delhi university lab disposed of radioactive cobalt-60 into a scrap market. One person died. Several were injured. In 2017, a GPS malfunction sent an Agni-II nuclear-capable missile near a populated area. In 2014, a valve failure at Kakrapar threatened radiation leaks. In 1995, a coolant pipe burst at Rajasthan's reactor. In 2002, fuel rod mishandling at Kalpakkam spiked radiation dangerously close to local communities. Between 1994 and 2021, there have been 18 reported cases of nuclear material theft or loss in India. Uranium on the black market. Californium in private hands. The Bhopal disaster remains the world's worst industrial catastrophe — and still, no full-scope IAEA oversight. No accountability. Not even regulatory autonomy. India's own Comptroller and Auditor General has called out the AERB's lack of independence. Indian leaders routinely issue conventional threats to nuclear neighbours. It's a uniquely juvenile understanding of deterrence — only possible in Delhi. With immature, nuclear-sabre-rattling leadership threatening a region of 2 billion people, India's belligerence is no longer an internal risk. It is a regional liability — and a global one. This is the country that the West chose to proliferate nuclear technology with. Through BECA and other agreements, the US has effectively endorsed recklessness. This is not just hypocrisy. It is strategic malpractice. One lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis was the visible posturing of No First Use policies to reduce escalation risks. Instead, India has embarked on a visible First Use threat, with aggressive and strategic attack platforms. Crisis stability theory, shaped by the 1962 near-catastrophe, warns that such posturing creates a preemptive incentive for Pakistan or China, heightening the risk of miscalculation in a tense region. Pakistan and China, by contrast, continue to be recognised for nuclear responsibility. IAEA and US officials have acknowledged their command systems as stable and disciplined. No major nuclear accidents or incidents have been publicly reported at Pakistani facilities. Pakistan maintains its nuclear assets under tight security with a robust command and control structure through the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and the National Command Authority (NCA). Pakistan has improved its regulatory framework, including joining several international treaties like the Convention on Nuclear Safety. The world was lucky in 1962. It may not be again. This is not a game of nerves. These are doctrines in freefall. And to the empire-builders in Taipei, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi — and their borrowed faith in absolute escalatory control — this may be a final warning: Are you prepared to be the first ideologues in history who confuse tactical advantage with thermonuclear immunity — and stake your grand civilisational myths on the hope that the other side blinks first? Abdul Munim is a freelance contributor and electrical engineer. He posts on X using the handle @Munimusing and can be reached via email at munimusing@ All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the author
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Punjab PTI MPAs face speaker's reference
Listen to article Punjab Assembly Speaker Malik Muhammad Ahmad Khan has announced that a reference will be sent to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against 26 suspended PTI MPAs over their "disruptive, abusive and violative" conduct during a recent assembly session. The move follows the suspension issued on June 27 under Rule 210(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the provincial legislature of the Punjab, 1997, after the members disrupted Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz's address with slogans and ruckus in the House. Further escalating tensions, the speaker also ordered recovery of Rs2,035,000 in damages from 10 PTI MPAs - Rs203,550 each – for climbing desks and damaging eight microphones during their June 16 protest during the provincial budget presentation. In another incident, PTI MPA Hassan Malik (PP-81) was barred from attending the assembly until the current session is prorogued, following his act of hurling a copy of the budget speech at Finance Minister Mian Mujtaba Shuja Ur Rehman. On June 24, the speaker gave a ruling stressing the importance of maintaining parliamentary decorum: "I emphasise all members, regardless of their political affiliation, in order to preserve decorum, uphold the dignity of this august Assembly, and ensure that parliamentary proceedings can continue without disruption." "I shall take all the steps within the legal framework to maintain order and uphold dignity of this august House and its members," he further warned. The response came after Opposition Leader Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar raised a point of order, defending protest as a constitutional right. To determine the limits of that right, the speaker cited Rule 223 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, enacted under Article 67, read with Article 127 of the Constitution, which outlines members' conduct in the House. However, Bhachar strongly condemned the speaker's orders and vowed the opposition would continue its protest undeterred by threats of de-seating or financial penalties. "It was decided in our parliamentary meeting that opposition members will enter and leave the House silently," he said, noting that when he attempted to speak on a point of order, the speaker did not grant him the floor. PTI rejects 'fascist tactics' Meanwhile, senior PTI leaders blasted the ruling coalition and the judiciary, denouncing the "orchestrated campaign" to suppress the party and dismantle democracy. They firmly rejected the notion of a "Minus Imran" formula. In a joint press conference with suspended Punjab Assembly members, PTI legal counsel Salman Akram Raja, Opposition Leader Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar, and senior lawyer Sardar Latif Khosa condemned the systematic persecution of their party. "There is no Minus-Imran plan. The party hasn't even considered such a thing," Salman Akram Raja said. "For 78 years, we've been fed the illusion of democracy, when in reality, we've only seen authoritarian rule," he added, accusing the state of continuously installing "political proxies". Raja noted that PTI had engaged even with those "propped up on crutches", only to meet inertia. "Every time we met them, they said: 'We'll ask and let you know.' Even when we requested a meeting with our party founder, they again said they had to seek permission. They admitted they had no authority. So, what are we to negotiate with such powerlessness?" Regarding the Swat tragedy, where 16 tourists lost their lives in a flash flood, Raja acknowledged the limits of governance in natural calamities, adding, "If a family on a picnic is struck by an act of God, what can any government do? The K-P government isn't Superman." Opposition Leader Bhachar reiterated claims of institutional overreach. "We're resisting fascism in the Punjab Assembly," he said. "Last night, they launched a surprise assault and suspended 26 of our members." Bhachar maintained that PTI lawmakers had exercised their constitutional right to protest. "Not only were we suspended, but they also fined us. And now they're preparing to file references in the Election Commission," he said, pointing out double standards in the chamber. "The deputy speaker was raising slogans from the chair... has any action been taken against him?" He added that he had tried three times to take the floor but was not allowed to speak. "It is a principle that the opposition leader must be given the floor when he rises," Bhachar said, noting that legal consultation on the fines is underway. Sardar Latif Khosa, meanwhile, took aim at the judiciary. "Justice Qazi Faez Isa's decisions are equivalent to murdering democracy," he said. "The nation is holding him accountable — and will continue to do so." He also questioned the legitimacy of the chief election commissioner's continued service. "He's retired, yet still sitting due to the 26th constitutional amendment," Khosa said, adding that the notion of military courts for civilians was incompatible with democracy. Calling the SC's reserved seats case decision "the darkest in its history", Khosa said, "We had a two-thirds majority, yet we are to receive zero Senate seats? There cannot be a more disgraceful or repugnant decision than this." "These decisions will cost the nation for centuries," he warned, pledging never to surrender. "We are fighting for the rights of the people of Pakistan." Salman Akram Raja said PTI's commitment remained undeterred. "Yesterday's decision has not weakened our commitment. We will restore the rights of the people," he declared. "This case isn't about PTI or the Sunni Ittehad Council alone — it belongs to every citizen." "We reject this verdict, and will continue to do so," he asserted. He accused the state of sidelining PTI from the February 8 general elections. "First, our electoral symbol was snatched. Then, our reserved seats were looted in the dark of night." "In Pakistan's entire legal history, there are only two rulings that went against tyranny. This was not one of them," he added. "Our opposition seats were distributed like spoils of war to other parties. The Constitution demands that reserved seats be proportionally allocated to parties winning general seats." "In this country, democracy has been treated like forbidden fruit," Raja said. "There's no doubt that PTI is the largest political force. Yesterday was just another failed attempt to silence that voice."
