KARACHI:
Austerity for masses, generosity for classes
The federal budget for 2026-2027 has delivered a painful message to millions of Pakistanis: there is one standard for the rulers and another for the ruled.
Government employees and pensioners, whose incomes have been steadily eroded by years of inflation, have been granted a mere 7% increase in salaries and pensions. At the same time, MNAs have reportedly received a salary increase of around 188%, while the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairman Senate have benefited from increases exceeding 534%.
For years, ordinary citizens have been told that the country’s economic situation is difficult. They have been asked to bear higher taxes, increased electricity and gas tariffs, rising fuel prices, and the escalating cost of almost every essential commodity. Pensioners have watched the value of their pensions shrink year after year. Many now struggle to pay for medicines, utilities, and even basic household necessities.
In such circumstances, what exactly does a 7% increase achieve? It does not restore purchasing power. It does not compensate for years of inflation. It does not provide meaningful relief to retired employees who spent decades serving the state. It is, at best, a token gesture. The contrast becomes even more disturbing when viewed alongside the extraordinary increases granted to the political leadership.
Pakistan is not a wealthy country. Nearly half of its population lives in poverty or close to it. Millions of families struggle daily to make ends meet. At such a moment, one would expect the country’s political leadership to demonstrate restraint and solidarity with the people. Instead, the message conveyed is that sacrifice is expected from everyone except those at the top.
The issue is not whether parliamentarians should receive reasonable salaries. No sensible person would argue that public representatives should work without adequate compensation. The issue is the sheer scale of the increases and the timing of their approval.
Political leaders frequently speak about serving the poor and protecting vulnerable segments of society. Such claims lose credibility when public policy appears to favour the privileged over the struggling majority. Leadership is not measured by speeches; it is measured by example. A government that asks its citizens to endure hardship must be willing to share that hardship itself.
The budget has therefore raised a simple but fundamental question: if 7% is considered adequate for pensioners who spent a lifetime serving the nation, why are increases of 188% and 534% considered necessary for those who govern it? Many Pakistanis will find it difficult to understand, let alone accept, the logic behind such a disparity.
M Shaban Uppal
Lahore
