Privacy Unplugged

Privacy Unplugged Privacy can be understood as a vital space for self-reflection, solitude, and mental rejuvenation—a concept poignantly emphasized by Virginia Woolf in A Room of One’s Own. Woolf argued that every individual, particularly women, must have a space of their own where they can spend time in silence, undisturbed by the external world. Such moments are not a luxury but a psychological necessity for human beings, allowing them to refresh their minds and reconnect with their inner selves. In this sense, privacy acts as a mode of self-renewal. However, in the contemporary era dominated by digital communication tools, such private moments are increasingly becoming inaccessible. We now exist in a perpetual state of self-broadcasting, facilitated by ubiquitous technologies. As a result, the very notion of privacy is under threat, with significant consequences for human well-being. Despite these concerns, some critics argue that the erosion of privacy may not be entirely detrimental. They contend that constant digital connectivity fosters a sense of security and belonging, drawing parallels with collectivist traditions such as African tribalism, where identity is rooted in the community—“I am because we are.” Similar communal modes of thinking were once prevalent in early European societies as well. These critics suggest that the contemporary emphasis on privacy is a relatively recent, Western development—particularly American in origin. Furthermore, they point out that modern devices allow users to configure privacy settings, offering a sense of control over personal information while remaining connected to others. Nevertheless, the tension surrounding the availability of privacy continues to haunt us. Despite the ability to set virtual boundaries, there remains a deep, unmet desire for solitude and disengagement from constant connectivity. As Tiffany Jenkins argues that the domain of privacy has been significantly encroached upon, rendering individuals subject to continuous collective surveillance. She asserts that the technological revolution has not only diminished but also destabilized the very borders of privacy. John Stuart Mill, in his classic liberal philosophy, underscored the importance of privacy as a shield against the surveillance of both the state and society—an essential space where individuals can cultivate independent thought and nurture their inner lives. Without privacy, the possibility of true freedom is severely compromised. George Orwell starkly illustrated this in his dystopian novel 1984, where omnipresent telescreens symbolize an authoritarian regime’s relentless intrusion into individual lives, obliterating any sense of personal space or freedom. Today, this dystopian vision is increasingly mirrored by modern digital technologies that facilitate constant surveillance and data tracking. Michel Foucault’s theory of the Panopticon further explains this phenomenon. Originally conceptualized as a prison design where a central watchtower allows for the surveillance of all inmates without them knowing when they are being watched, Foucault’s this metaphor can be extended to modern societies. In the digital age, we inhabit a panoptic system wherein our actions, thoughts, and preferences are continuously monitored and influenced, leading to a suppression of individual autonomy. Under such conditions, people are compelled to think collectively, performatively, and in alignment with digital trends rather than engage in authentic self-expression. From a sociopolitical perspective, this condition has stifled creativity and critical thought. Social media platforms often privilege virality, hashtags, and trend conformity over originality, creating a homogenized digital culture. Those who resist this flow are frequently marginalized as eccentrics or outsiders. The situation becomes even more perilous when totalitarian regimes exploit these digital tools to enforce ideological conformity and suppress dissent. In such environments, freedom of thought and diverse perspectives are not just discouraged, they are extinguished. This results in a stagnation of intellectual and cultural evolution. Compounding this issue is the normalization of the idea that “the private is public.” Increasingly, individuals are encouraged to share every detail of their lives—from personal joys to intimate struggles—on public platforms. While this may appear to foster connection, it often leads to the dissemination of false or exaggerated information, generating significant social and political consequences. The performance of hypervisibility replaces the experience of authenticity. Considering these developments, the urgency to reclaim and protect privacy has never been greater. Despite the pervasive nature of social media and digital surveillance, steps can be taken to restore a healthy balance. This includes consciously limiting screen time, not just for children but for adults as well, and re-establishing face-to-face human connections. Traditional practices such as reading books, once a source of deep intellectual and emotional nourishment, have been largely replaced by visual content and ephemeral digital messages. The shift from contemplative engagement to superficial consumption poses a serious threat to human depth and meaning. Human progress must continue, but not at the expense of the very qualities that define humanity. The right to privacy is not a relic of the past but a cornerstone of psychological well-being, intellectual freedom, and creative expression. In the face of digital overexposure, reclaiming this right is essential for the future of a free and flourishing society.

Squeezing the Squeezed

 

Squeezing the Squeezed

In contemporary society, we seem to be operating under a harsh and regressive principle: those who are already burdened must be burdened further, especially if their ability to resist is minimal. This unfortunate trend is particularly evident in Pakistan, where increases in taxes, electricity bills, and deductions in salaries disproportionately target government employees, most notably those in the education and healthcare sectors. These individuals, rather than being supported, have become the most convenient scapegoats for the state's financial imbalances.

This situation is reminiscent of an Indian film in which a state Raja repeatedly raises taxes to fund his ambitions, ignoring the suffering of his people. Each time they protest, he uses force to extract more from them. Similarly, in our context, whenever the government faces a financial shortfall or budgetary gap, the immediate response is to cut into the earnings and benefits of public servants. It appears the state is never hesitant to wield its metaphorical sword against the very people who have served it faithfully.

Government employees already pay a disproportionate share of taxes and fulfill remittance obligations more consistently than any other segment of society. Yet, their financial futures are now under severe threat. Pensions, gratuities, and other post-retirement allowances are being slashed arbitrarily and without transparent justification. Historically, public sector employment was desirable because it offered a sense of financial security after retirement, typically after 35 or more years of dedicated service. Today, even that sense of security is rapidly eroding.

A particularly troubling example is the recent elimination of Leave Encashment, a policy through which employees were compensated for unused leave. The government has now replaced this with the Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) system, which denies financial compensation even to those who diligently saved their leave. Gratuity payments have also been drastically reduced, and pension percentages are declining. These policy shifts have understandably created panic among those scheduled to retire in 2025 or in the coming months.

This sense of uncertainty is compounded by the broader economic crisis: spiraling inflation, record-high taxes, skyrocketing food and energy prices, and increasingly unaffordable healthcare. Retired employees, often elderly and vulnerable, are now left to navigate a hostile economic landscape with diminishing resources. Rather than being rewarded for decades of service, they are met with neglect and financial insecurity.

What is particularly egregious is that the government has also refused to release group insurance payments and has withdrawn several allowances—such as the Discrepancy Allowance, which continue to be paid in other provinces. The result is not only declining morale but also a decline in the quality of work in essential sectors like education and health.

These developments have serious social and psychological repercussions. In the past, individuals worked hard to secure admission to higher education institutions and eventually land government jobs, encouraged by the promise of long-term stability. Now, seeing the deteriorating conditions of public sector retirees, many young people are disillusioned. They are turning instead to vocational skills or private enterprises, seeking immediate income over long-term service.

The irony is staggering. Government employees are the only segment of society from whom taxes are deducted directly from their salaries. Yet, they are taxed again and again—on purchases, ATM use, banking transactions, telecommunications, and digital services. Meanwhile, powerful groups such as industrialists, traders, large landowners, and even professionals often pay little to no taxes. Many enjoy state-subsidized perks like free electricity and fuel, all while evading tax obligations through loopholes and underreporting.

Given these realities, it is imperative for the state to recognize and fulfill its responsibilities to government employees. The state must ensure that those who contribute most consistently and honestly to national revenue are not abandoned in retirement. Through mechanisms such as mutual funds, pension insurance schemes, or public-private partnerships, sustainable support systems must be established for retirees. In Pakistan, finding employment post-retirement is nearly impossible. Older individuals face health issues, mental stress, and often a deep sense of loss and nostalgia, making re-entry into the workforce an unrealistic expectation.

It is therefore not only a matter of economic justice but of moral duty for the government to support its retired employees. These individuals have served the nation for decades and deserve dignity, security, and care, not abandonment and uncertainty.