Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Music Video - David Guetta - Hey Mama

Video Report - Why is Pakistan sidelining English?

President Obama Says 'No Precedent' to Revoke Bill Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom

President Obama said he cannot revoke embattled actor and comedian Bill Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom, despite calls for the president to take it back after allegations that Cosby allegedly had sex with women after drugging them.
"There's no precedent for revoking a medal. We don't have that mechanism," the president said in a news conference this afternoon.

ABC US News | World News
While he would not comment on the specifics of ongoing criminal or civil cases, the president said rape is not tolerable.
"If you give a woman or a man for that matter without his or her knowledge a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape," the president said. "I think this country, any civilized country should have no tolerance for rape."
PAVE, a nonprofit organization dedicated to sexual assault prevention and survivor empowerment, started a petition on just last week urging the president to revoke Cosby's presidential medal of freedom, which was bestowed upon him by President George W. Bush in 2009.
“The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest award bestowed on civilians for their contributions to society. Bill Cosby does not deserve to be on the list of distinguished recipients,” the petition states. “We urge the administration to take the unprecedented action of revoking this award.”
A 2005 court filing released last week revealed Cosby admitted to obtaining prescription drugs with the intent of giving them to women whom he wanted to have sex with.
Cosby has never been charged with a crime in connection to the accusations of drugging and sexual assault and his lawyers have denied the allegations.
"The only reason Mr. Cosby settled was because it would have been embarrassing in those days to put all those women on the stand and his family had no clue," the Cosby camp said in a statement to ABC News last week. "That would have been very hurtful."

An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War

The final deal with Iran announced by the United States and other major world powers does what no amount of political posturing and vague threats of military action had managed to do before. It puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics.
The deal, the product of 20 arduous months of negotiations, would obviously have provided more cause for celebration if Iran had agreed to completely dismantle all of its nuclear facilities. But the chances of that happening were effectively zero, and even if all of Iran’s nuclear-related buildings and installations were destroyed, no one can erase the knowledge Iranian scientists have acquired after working on nuclear projects for decades.
As described by Mr. Obama and other officials, the deal seems sound and clearly in the interest of the United States, the other nations that drafted it and the state of Israel. In return for a phased lifting of international economic sanctions, Iran will reduce by 98 percent its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which can be processed further into bomb-grade fuel, and reduce the number of operating centrifuges used to enrich that fuel by two-thirds, to 5,060. These limits mean that if Iran ever decides to violate the agreement and make a dash for a nuclear bomb, it will take a year to produce the weapons-grade fuel needed for a single bomb, compared with a couple of months now.
Many of the various restrictions in the agreement will be in force for 10 to 25 years. Some, notably Iran’s agreement to constant and technologically advanced monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, will last indefinitely, as will its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to never produce a nuclear weapon. Inspectors will have access to suspicious sites “where necessary, when necessary,” President Obama said, and if Iran cheats, that will be detected early enough to respond, including by quickly reimposing sanctions or taking military action.
The deal nearly faltered on a demand by Iran and Russia that United Nations bans on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles be lifted immediately. But in the end, the accord requires that the conventional weapons ban remain in place for five years and the missile ban for eight years — assuming Iran abides by its commitments.
It is deeply unsettling that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel derisively dismissed the deal immediately as a “historic mistake.” He, Republicans in Congress and most candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have opposed negotiations with Iran from the outset yet offered no credible alternative to a negotiated settlement. The Republican presidential hopefuls repeated that formula today — condemnation of the deal with no credible alternative to offer.
That said, no one should have any illusions about Iran, which considers Israel a sworn enemy; often condemns the United States; supports Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations; and aspires to greater influence in the region. Once sanctions are lifted, it stands to gain access to billions of dollars from accounts in international banks that have been frozen and from new oil exports and other business deals.
American officials say that Iran will get that money over time, and that its immediate priority will be to deal with pressing domestic needs. More important, many American sanctions will remain in place even after the deal is implemented, including those relating to Iran’s support for terrorism and its human rights violations. The United States has to be extremely vigilant in monitoring how Iran uses those new funds and in enforcing those sanctions.
Agreeing on the nuclear deal is just the first step. Congress gets to review and vote on it. Powerful forces, like Mr. Netanyahu, have vowed to defeat it, and Mr. Obama may have to make good on his vow to veto any resolution of disapproval. It would be irresponsible to squander this chance to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.

Video - British foreign secy. says Iran agreement "victory for diplomacy"

Video - Nadereh Chamlou discusses the Iran nuke deal

Video Report - DEAL! 'Good' nuclear deal with Iran reached

Video Report - Key points of historic Iran nuclear deal

Video Report - Barack Obama: Iran nuclear deal based on 'verification not on trust'

Video Report - Obama briefing press a day after conclusion of nuclear talks

Pashto Song - Sadar Ali Takar

Pashto Music - Sardar Ali Takkar - که ځما مینه- رحمان بابا

Threats Abounding in Afghanistan


    The National Unity Government is navigating a sea of power players, internal, and external threats. Ghani needs to be diligent if the government, and Afghanistan, is to survive.
    After being formed by a supra-constitutional political deal, the National Unity Government (NUG) is now navigating a sea of power players who, for all intents and purposes, are attempting a comeback. And Former President Hamid Karzai seems to be in the lead.
    Karzai has consistently denied that he opposes the current government. Heconfirmed this in an interview with the New York Times on June 15 saying he is not taking an active role in politics nor will he try to come back to power in 2019. But his moves imply otherwise.
    Karzai has criticized the current government, speaking out against the controversial intelligencesharing deal between the Afghan spy agency, the National Directorate of Security, and its Pakistani counterpart, Inter-Services Intelligence, and the NUG’s inclusion of Pakistan in the peace talks with the Taliban.
    He also visited Moscow by special invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin one week after his New York Times interview, where they discussedtheir concerns about the advancement of the Islamic State into Afghanistan and the Middle East — discussions that are usually reserved for heads of state or foreign ministers, not former, apolitical statesmen.
    That begs the question: Why would the Russian leader discuss security concerns with a retired president who has said he’s stepped away from politics and governance? The answer is simple: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    This visit came just after the European Union and the United States extended sanctions against Russia for a further six months for violating a ceasefire deal with Ukraine. Now that Putin and Karzai have a common interest — both opposing the United States’ interference in the region — they convened together.
    Karzai’s actions have not gone unnoticed by commentators and analysts inside and out of Afghanistan.
    Political commentators on major news channels in Afghanistan regularly spend their time criticizing the NUG and praising the status quo under Karzai. Judging from the slant of the news networks, Karzai is the mascot of the anti-NUG bloc.
    Analysts also believe that Karzai is dreaming a comeback to power. Scott Smith, director of the Afghanistan and Central Asia Program for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), said in a discussion on June 16 that an opposition to the Ghani government is emerging and Karzai “is sort of playing an opposition role [to the current government].” Smith added that everyone in Afghanistan seems to think Karzai is playing power games.
    Strong warlords like Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf, Ismail Khan, Atta Mohammed Noor, Gul Agha Sherzai, and others sidelined by CEO Abdullah Abdullah and Ghani are, according to Smith, “either gravitating towards [Karzai] or setting up their own poles” opportunistically hoping the NUG will collapse.
    This mass is mounting as organizations like the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and Ghani are scrutinizing ministerial contracts and exposing large amounts of embezzlement by former officials. SIGAR stated in its most recent quarterly report that around $800 million in U.S. aid money was diverted to “ghost schools.”
    When all fingers were pointed to former education minister Farooq Wardag — a Karzai insider — he appeared on Kabul News TV in an interview. Instead of responding to the accusations against him, he used the old military rule: Offense is the best defense. He attacked the NUG and blamed it for “selling” Afghanistan to Pakistan and added that he will form an opposition group against the current government. Under Karzai, this critic would have been given a position to calm him, but Ghani has been strictly against such a policy, which will only let Wardag’s clout flourish.
    The NUG is not only threatened by outside elements, like Karzai and sidelined warlords, but also by dissonance between Ghani and Abdullah. The two have yet to reach a consensus on forming a much needed Electoral Reform Commission and the appointment of certain cabinet ministers.
    Discord also exists within their teams. The current governor of Balkh province and a prominent supporter of Abdullah, Atta Mohammad Noor, has blatantly stated that Ghani is not an elected president. And despite Noor and former rival first vice president General Abdul Rashid Dostum joining hands to launch an offensive against terrorists in the north, according to a Human Rights Watch report, Noor is arming and supporting militias in the north, militias he can use to maintain his influence in the region.
    Perhaps Ali Jalali, a former Afghan interior minister, said it best at USIP: There is a tension inside the government to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been sacrificed for maintaining the unity. And that actually has been exploited by insurgents.”
    While Ghani has been successful in enacting measure to reduce corruption, a tough job still lies ahead: he needs to reduce tensions within the government that are paving the way for players to make power grabs. Ghani has to be diligent and consultative if government — and Afghanistan — is to survive.

    China provides $10 mn to Pakistan for rehabilitation of IDPs

    China today pledged to provide $10 million to all-weather friend Pakistan for the rehabilitation of people displaced due to military operations in the restive tribal region, officials said. 

    The agreement to provide the special grant was signed between Chinese ambassador Sun Weidong and secretary economic affairs division Muhammad Saleem Sethi here. 

    "China firmly supports the efforts of Pakistan to safeguard its national security and the Chinese side will continue to provide assistance within its capacity for the reconstruction and livelihood improvements of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)," according to a statement by the Chinese embassy. 

    An official of finance ministry said that the grant from China will be utilised for the assistance of people of tribal areas who have suffered due to war on terror. 

    Over a million people were forced to flee their homes when army launched operation in the Taliban stronghold of North Waziristan last June. 

    More than 90 per cent of the district has already been cleared of militants and the government had launched a programme for the phased return of people to their areas. 

    Last year also, the Chinese government provided $10 million to help the internally-displaced persons (IDPs). 

    Chinese president Xi Jinping visited Pakistan in April and announced the $46 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor in April.

    Pakistan - Asif Ali Zardari welcomes Iran and world powers nuclear deal as ‘potential game changer’

    Former President Asif Ali Zardari has welcomed the deal struck in Vienna on Tuesday between Iran and P5 +1 over the former’s nuclear program as “a far reaching development that holds the potential of a game changer in the region”.
    “The agreement is a triumph of diplomacy and negotiations over coercion and hostility and is most welcomed”.
    An Iran cooperating with the world raises the prospects and hopes for peace, stability and development in the region, he said.
    The test now is for all sides uphold their commitments in letter and spirit, said the former President expressing also the hope that they will.
    He also called upon the government to seize the moment and translate the dream of Iran Pakistan gas pipe line which was formally initiated by the PPP government into a reality.
    The nuclear deal opens the doors for the Iran -Pakistan gas pipeline and thereby resolve our lingering and crippling energy crisis, he said.
    A great lesson of the Iran and P5+1 deal is that given perseverance, patience and commitment nations can overcome decades of hostility and move towards building structures of peace, the former President said.
    Dialogue and negotiations and not hostility and animosity are also the way forward for peace, stability and development in South Asia. Mr. Zardari said

    Pakistan - Bounty of $5,000 Announced For Anyone Who Kills Asia Bibi

    According to an international news agency details, 54 year old Ashiq Masih husband of Pakistani Christian woman Asia Bibi –a blasphemy convict said a bounty has been announced for anyone who would kill her. Asia Bibi, a 50 year old Pakistani Christian woman is sentenced to death by Pakistani courts over blasphemy charges under the Pakistani blasphemy law. As said by Ashiq Masih, the announcement of the bounty has been posted. This bounty pledges to reward almost $5,000 to anyone who could kill Bibi.
    Asia Bibi was accused of committing blasphemy in 2009, since then she has been behind the bars up till now. He has been struggling for get her free fears that even if Asia Bibi is acquitted by the court her life will always be on the rocks because the Islamic clerics have put a bounty over her head.”The Maulvis [clerics] want her dead,” he claims. “They have announced a prize of [98 to $4,915] for anyone who kills Asia. They have even declared that if the court acquits her they will ensure the death sentence stands.”
    The crestfallen and wearied Christian man, along with his five children have been in hiding since the incident and claim that they have changed their dwelling almost 15 times now. He says, “We’d been targeted by villagers for a long time and they often taunted us. There had been many arguments over drainage problems and water pumps, always something to fight over.”

    - See more at:

    Pakistan-China relations: the danger zone

    By  Dr. Qaisar Rashid

    No doubt, China is Pakistan's best friend, but is it necessary to keep on testing its loyalty and limits?

    Ostensibly, the dynamics of the world have changed. The world has fast traversed the era of economic war between countries — a special feature of the post-Cold War era — and has entered the era of economic cooperation, in which neighbouring countries collaborate with one another economically so that the whole region reaps dividends. Europe is the prototype for this idea of collaboration. If there is politics left in the world, it is now the politics of economic regions. How strongly this reality is overtaking countries can be seen in Asia.
    On July 10, in Ufa, Russia, at the 15th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), the status of both Pakistan and India was raised from observer to full member. Just a few years ago, no one could have imagined that Russia, China, India and Pakistan would opt to join hands for shared economic interests, regardless of their long-standing disputes. Pakistanis are generally amazed at this turn of events. Nevertheless, a Lahore-based Pakistani businessman, Arif Sarwar, would like to share his thoughts with the readers of this daily in the following words:

    “The magnanimity of China in vetoing India’s move to hold Pakistan accountable for the release of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi (commander of the banned organisation, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, allegedly involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks) on April 9 this year, at the sanctions committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 23, may become Pakistan’s undoing. China had to do so when India invoked UNSC Resolution 1267 of October 15, 1999, which was the sanctions regime originally meant for al Qaeda but was subsequently modified and strengthened by 11 resolutions. These resolutions were adopted under Chapter seven of the UN Charter, which enjoins all states to take certain measures against terrorism, such as freezing assets, imposing travel bans and disarming the designated individuals and entities. Failure to do so could make a state liable for sanctions to target the ‘designated actors and entities’ initially, and then ‘comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions’. It is not known if Pakistan can also invoke a similar UNSC resolution against India because of India’s alleged funding of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM).”

    Although China justified the veto by saying that India had “failed to provide enough information”, the other four permanent members (US, UK, France and Russia) and the non-permanent members of the sanctions committee, such as New Zealand and Chile, were convinced of the evidence and arguments provided by India. This event is the success of India in singling out Pakistan, even if it has failed to have Pakistan ostracised internationally. This is not the first time China has done a favour for Pakistan, especially in the domain of terrorism. How long will Pakistan rely on China to save its skin in the UNSC? How long will China come to Pakistan’s rescue? What price should Pakistan be ready to pay for being obliged? What are the expectations of China? Will Pakistan ever be able to return these favours? What will happen if another Mumbai-style incident happens on Indian soil, the footprints of which are again traced to Pakistan? Will China be able to bail Pakistan out again? What will happen if China does not help out Pakistan at the UNSC level next time? Does Pakistan have any contingency plans for such a scenario, other than blaming China for disloyalty? China has also made a mistake; it has raised Pakistan’s expectations too much. On the other hand, Pakistan has put China in a difficult position by making it not only protect Pakistan’s position but also its own for defending Pakistan at the UNSC.

    Even the entry of Pakistan into the SCO is more because of China’s backing than Pakistan’s domestic financial performance or diplomatic success abroad. If China had not vetoed India’s move at the UNSC, Pakistan may have been denied membership to the SCO. Recently, when Pakistan dithered in sending its armed forces to help Saudi Arabia against the rebels of Yemen, the Saudi government lashed out at Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has assisted Pakistan financially on several occasions and was surprised at Pakistan’s indecision to reciprocate in kind. The question is: will Pakistan be able to pass a test from China?

    There is another dimension to this issue. For how long can China afford to incur the odium of India at the cost of Pakistan? China and India are coming closer. China is ready to invest in India (albeit half the amount that it has promised to invest in Pakistan) and has accepted the entry of India into the SCO. The regional economic interests of both countries are converging. Both China and India have the capacity to give and take. India’s market is far bigger than that of Pakistan and has more to offer China than Pakistan does. The foremost target for Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister (PM) of India, is how to get China to recast its regional preferences. Assuming that the leitmotif behind Pak-China relations is impervious is a fallacy. In this age of alternatives — and this is where the danger zone lies — Pakistan is not anticipating a turn of events, even if the possibility is remote, which could affect the regional priorities of China at the expense of Pakistan. Pakistan needs to take measures domestically that obviate the need for other countries to bail it out. Pakistan must start valuing its sovereign and independent status.

    Pakistan - Judging the parliament

    Marvi Sirmed
    If it is important to see how our representatives are elected, it is equally important to see what happens between two elections. While we have been debating quite religiously on the electoral reforms, one misses an equally robust debate on the parliamentary reforms. Without a representative and well-functioning parliament, it is impossible to enjoy the fruits of democracy.

    The triangular function of the parliament – legislation, oversight of the executive and representation of the constituent – warrants it to get engaged consistently with not only the state institutions and the government ministries, but also with the public. Any reforms agenda for the parliament would consider these important aspects of parliamentary functions, and would aim at institutionally strengthening the parliament to perform these functions freely and effectively.

    The main areas where we need to improve the parliament would thus be representation, transparency and effectiveness. On the contrary, one witnesses an uninformed bickering in the media about how much salaries parliamentarians get. Technocrats (that’s a euphemism for talking heads on TV) sound more concerned about how could the Members of Parliament (MPs) revise their own salaries.

    Yesterday I received a message (titled Reforms Agenda 2015) that implied our MPs get lifelong pension (which they don’t), they are entitled to a special health care system different from anyone else in the country, MPs and people are inherently adversarial entities (which they are not, people elect their representatives to parliament), MPs get a contract, which continues even after their tenure in parliament (no, an MP does not get a ‘contract’ unless their oath is being taken as a contract).

    Another ridiculous point that this so called ‘Reforms Agenda 2015’ carried was a proposal that citizens should stop surrendering their LPG subsidies unless all subsidies available to MPs are withdrawn including subsidized food in Parliament canteen.

    The fact is, in Pakistan people are not receiving any LPG subsidy. Nor are they being asked to surrender that subsidy. And there is no subsidized food in ‘parliament canteen’ for MPs. All of this is from India where people get LPG subsidy and it’s the Indian government that is campaigning for the surrender of this subsidy.

    There is another similar email that has been endlessly circulated since last many years. It carries the copies of menu of ‘parliament canteen’ with subsidized rates. As subsidized that a cup of tea was shown for just Rs 2. First time when I received that email, it was in 2004. The menu included idli, dosa and saamber. Food items that many have only heard of, that too, thanks to Bollywood films.

    Just when I was wondering on the disinformation that this particular message was spreading about the parliament, a national daily published a full fledge article by a senior ‘technocrat’. The article based its entire argument on that factually incorrect message. We are indeed living in a slaughterhouse of fact checking!

    But this trend of disinformation campaigns necessitates an SOS call for more civic education about the parliament as well as other robust parliamentary reforms to make this institution deliver and contribute to the quality of democracy. Ever since the parliament came into existence in 1973, it has been struggling for its survival. There have been, however, some half–baked and insufficient but very important reforms attempts since then.

    During Mr. Bhutto’s parliament back in early 1970s, we saw largest number of laws passed by the assembly and most superior quality of the debate in House. However, this superior quality of debate could not ensure equal rights for all citizens and we got the Second Amendment Council of Islamic Ideology alongside the parliament adamant to determine the religion of the very people who elected it.

    After this glorious tenure of parliament in terms of the quality of debate and outcome (more than 350 laws were passed, which to date is a record), we got a non-party based parliament with very limited powers. This affected considerably on the quality of debates in the House and badly hit the entire concept of parliamentary checks and balances. The executive branch became more powerful than the parliament thus usurping latter’s right to oversee the former.

    Throughout the 1990s, parliament kept struggling for survival with sporadic efforts to empower itself. The main problem was that the executive branch, in the Westminster style parliaments that we follow, was part of the legislature. Since the treasury benches are more in number, they are able to influence not only the agenda-setting powers but also the oversight mandate of the parliament. Ministers won’t accept the supremacy of parliament. They won’t consider themselves to be subservient to the oversight of parliamentary committees. They won’t present themselves to the House for questions.

    It was that period of parliamentary debility that Ms. Benazir Bhutto introduced the office of Parliamentary Secretaries from within the Treasury, who would answer the questions in the absence of Ministers. She also tried her best to strengthen the institution of parliamentary parties. I remember those days in mid 1990s when she would make it sure that parliamentary party meetings are held, agenda is set in Business Advisory Committee and MPs partake in the discussions on party’s legislative planning.

    In 1997, that changed. The centrist government of Mr. Nawaz Sharif carrying a heavy mandate was too busy in exercising executive powers to pay any attention to the reforms process to empower the parliament. The decade under the ‘clean’ regime of enlightened moderation destroyed every gain that the parliament had earned for itself so far. Committee system went down the drain. A large number of women, thanks to their decades long struggle to get representation, came to the House but remain devoid of any voice throughout that tenure.

    In 2008 finally, parliament started moving towards the reforms for empowering itself albeit very carefully. The first woman Speaker of the House ensured that parliament is able to play its functions as effectively as possible. Committees were empowered and it was made obligatory upon the government to share ministry-wise budgetary proposals with Committees and get their feedback. The opposition’s role was strengthened by appointing Leader of Opposition as the Chair of Public Accounts Committee.

    An unwritten rule of ample representation of the opposition in Committees was also followed and after a long time Committees got treasury-opposition representative proportion at 60-40. Women got voice and organised themselves in a Caucus after the Chair empowered them for speaking during the debate at par with their male colleagues.

    In the current parliament, we have a committed democrat and federalist as the Senate Chair and an experienced parliamentarian in the chair of Speaker in National Assembly. Both of them have initiated some very important reforms that qualify comprehensive review some other time. For now, it would suffice to expect more empowerment and institutional strengthening of the parliament.

    Not only the chairs of both Houses, it is the responsibility of every parliamentary leader to ensure their party takes parliamentary business seriously and fulfill the promise that they made with the constituent. Remember, we vote you in on the promise of effective oversight on the government and of voicing our concerns on the floor of the House.

    Pakistan - Reham Khan’s fake degree? British college clarified it never offered journalism course

     Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan’s wife, Reham Khan’s personal website states that she won her post as a reporter on the BBC regional show South Today after starting a postgraduate course ‘in Broadcast Journalism at North Lindsay College’, in Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire.
    However, according to officials at North Lindsey, it has never offered such a course, reported The Daily Mail.
    Furthermore, they can find no record of anyone bearing Khan’s name or age ever having enrolled.
    ‘We do not have anyone by those names or date of birth having attended this college,’ says a spokesman. ‘We have never done a degree in broadcast journalism.’
    This was revealed by the same journalist, Sebastian Shakespeare, who disclosed the PTI Chairman’s marriage to Reham.
    Shakespeare wrote, “When I disclosed in January that cricket legend Imran Khan had secretly married former BBC presenter Reham Khan, his ex-wife Jemima Goldsmith seemed less than thrilled and publicly thanked Pakistanis who contacted her to say she remained their favourite First Lady.”
    This raises new questions about the past of Imran Khan’s wife and TV journalist Reham, 42, who has her own show in a private TV channel in Pakistan.
    This isn’t the first time Reham Khan’s past has been questioned. Politicians inside and outside PTI have cast doubts about Reham Khan’s past and her credentials over the past year, making her one of the most controversial personalities within the PTI.

    Pakistan - Imran Khan's Wife Under Fire Over 'Fake Degree'

    Reham Khan, the wife of Pakistani politician and former cricketer Imran Khan, today came under fire after a British newspaper said that her degree in broadcast journalism was fake.

    Reham's degree in Broadcast Journalism which she said was from North Lindsey College was fake as the college never offered this course nor a student of her name was ever registered with it, the Express Tribune quoted the daily as saying.
    "Reham Khan has not been truthful about her qualification," Daily Mail was quoted as saying by thenewspaper.

    Daily Mail is the same paper which broke the news of her marriage with Imran Khan at the start of the year.
    Reham went ballistic as the local TV channels picked the news.

    "This morning is a great example of why I have never picked up the Daily Mail and why I don't watch Pakistani TV channels," Reham tweeted.

    But, later she had to issues clarifications and change the profile on her website where she initially claimed earning the degree in Broadcast Journalism from North Lindsey College.

    In a clear volte-face, Reham said she never claimed to have a "degree in broadcast journalism" but she did a "diploma in broadcast media" from the Grimsby Institute Media Centre.

    She also termed the story of Daily Mail as "malicious and baseless" which according to her was planted by her opponents.

    Her husband has not so far spoken about the matter but several Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) leaders rejected the story and said it was aimed at maligning the party.