MOST conversations on educational issues in Pakistan, sooner than later, come to the topic of ‘values’ in our society — our young people in particular. People lament that values have changed and the change has been for the worse: young people just do not possess the values that older generations held. Empathy, tolerance and community feeling are often mentioned as prime examples of values we need badly but do not have or have lost to a large extent over time. The conversation then focuses on how curricula, textbooks and teaching should be changed to facilitate the inculcation of these values. This is all good — and yes, curricula, textbooks, teachers and teaching should definitely engage with the issue of values. In fact, we have always done that in education. Society has an interest in shaping how young people think and grow up and what they become. This is an essential part of the meaning of the very word ‘education’. But we should also remember that children learn much more from what they see adults doing around them and what they read, hear and watch on television, social media and within their social circles. They are shaped by what they see their parents, family elders and teachers do. Children learn from examples and what they see — far more than from what they might be asked to read/reproduce for assignments and examinations. If the two are not in line, curricula, books, lectures and lessons are likely to fall on deaf ears. Do religious minorities have the rights all citizens should? There are minorities in Pakistan who are even afraid to divulge their identity lest they be punished for just that. Even majorities have difficulty practising their religion freely. People are afraid to talk about religious issues in public and have internalised fear and self-censorship. A look at newspapers from a few months reveals countless reports of incidents where minorities and even individuals from majority communities have been victims. Those in power have decided to use power to secure their own interests (and longevity) rather than those of the public. If a judge or a few judges are deemed to be too independent or are disliked for one reason or another, the Constitution, law, rules, regulations, practice, everything can be changed to ensure that they are sidelined, are made out to be culprits, have their reputations ruined, or are forced to leave or become ineffective. If a journalist is disliked, we have him/her fired. Programmes are taken off-air, columnists are stopped from being able to write in papers. If a paper is deemed too ‘independent’ their advertisement revenue is restricted or other normal operations made difficult. Channels are taken off air. If these have required tightening of the laws, it has been done. But often, a call to the relevant newspaper or channel is enough of a threat given how the state has been handling these issues. Children are shaped by what they see their parents, family elders and teachers do. The state has weaponised the law against the citizens and in many domains. There are new laws against posting on social media, there are new laws against journalists, and laws are tightened around public protests. How the political opposition has been and is being treated is very clear. We need not say more on that. FIRs are used as a weapon. If the state does not like an individual and/or wants to give them a warning, all they have to do is register a case against them under any of the laws mentioned or start an investigation even before an FIR is registered. Even if the investigation is eventually closed or an FIR quashed, there will be months, sometimes years, of appearances before law-enforcement agencies and courts. The expenses and time consumed can be ruinous. The state knows this well but has, sadly, used it and is using it quite effectively against citizens they may not like for some reason. The right to public protest has become almost impossible to exercise and has been nearly criminalised. The use of Section 144 when a protest is expected gives the state the right to register FIRs against those who come out to protest and then face the wrath of the law for months and years. Charges like ‘obstruction of law-enforcement officers’ or ‘resisting law-enforcement officers’, ‘causing public nuisance’, ‘obstruction of traffic’, etc, are easy to weaponise against protesters and they have been weaponised. Every protest is deemed to be anti-state and a violation of the law. Every dissent is seen as dangerous to the integrity and sovereignty of the state. And then we say we should teach our children values like empathy and tolerance through books and classes. Are they not able to see what is happening around them? Do they not hear what is being said on news and chat programmes every day? Do they not have friends, relatives and elders who talk about these issues in their social spaces? How can they take what we give them in books and classes as important when they live in a society that violates these values and norms all the time as a matter of law as well as a matter of pride? As a society we need to think deep and hard about where we are and where we want to go. Some measures might seem desirable to ensure short-term survival but might have a very corrosive impact for us in the medium to long run. Those in power today have taken the state to such a place. This does not bode well for people who are facing all this but, just as importantly if not more so, it does not bode well for what we are likely to give our children and leave them in terms of values, institutions and practices. May 2026 be a year of reflection and course correction for us. The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives and an associate professor of economics at Lums. Published in Dawn, January 2nd, 2026