I have addressed the idea that the article says its good these girls are back in business twice already. At no point to you attempt to answer the debunking of your claim, you merely repeat the claim.
The title says “Dancing girls of Swat back in business”. A statement of fact.
I called it exploitation in my very first post, and have since referred to it as such several times.
I think the issue is your unwillingness to go beyond a word association understanding of the text.
Which is why nobody said that the act of dancing itself is a good thing.
and nobody is disputing the completely banal point that exploitation is bad.