The news of a band of clerics from a religious party constructing an illegal mosque on government property in Green Town, Lahore, served as a reminder to our authorities that their writ was being challenged. It was good to see that the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) took quick action late night after Daily Times’ exclusive reportage and demolished the illegal building. A case has also been registered against 50 people and so far seven people have been arrested. Since the clerics in Green Town had threatened to kill people on blasphemy charges if the illegal construction is stopped, they should be locked up behind bars. More such illegal encroachments should be identified and demolished. When religion is used as a tool to create fear amongst the masses, it is time to think logically and aim for a secular state instead of letting the state be a tool in the hands of vested interests.

Building illegal mosques is not a new phenomenon in this land of the pure. In the not-so-distant past, the notorious Lal Masjid issue started with the demolition of illegal constructions by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) in Islamabad. Mosques built illegally were razed but the Musharraf government acquiesced in the demands of the Lal Masjid clerics to rebuild them after they terrorised the citizens of Islamabad. This only made things worse as the fanatics, high on their ‘religious’ power, started making demands that bordered on absurdity. If there is a lesson to be learnt from that whole fiasco, it is that the state should never give in to the demands of religious zealots. Islam does not teach us to occupy land illegally to build mosques or seminaries. These so-called religious clergy have to be taken to task for maligning the true meaning of our religion.

Pakistan should take a leaf out of its old wing, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), where its Supreme Court has struck down the bulk of the controversial 5th Amendment by reinstating a ban on Islamic political parties. Bangladesh’s original constitution was secular in nature but following a coup in 1975, the constitution was amended and given a religious tinge. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said that she was “not in favour of banning any political party”. This may have more to do with the fact that the Jamaat-e-Islami is a large political party with some clout. Earlier, the Bangladesh High Court had outlawed punishments handed down in fatwas (religious edicts), after a series of cases of Muslim women being beaten and caned. Not only that, the Bangladesh government has also banned books by Maulana Maududi because they “encourage terrorism and militancy”. It is time that Pakistan follows in the footsteps of Bangladesh, also a Muslim country but which is paving a path towards the traditions laid down by its founding fathers. Mr Jinnah had also visualised a secular Pakistan but this was not to be. Soon after his death the Objectives Resolution inseminated the seeds of religious intolerance into our body politic. The religious parties in the Indian subcontinent were the most vocal in their opposition to the new state, but as soon as Pakistan came into being, they became its ‘guardians’. Appeasement of religious fundamentalists has led to an intolerant society where hate-literature is sold freely and religious minorities are persecuted. The state’s role has been far from ideal. State support to militant and sectarian outfits has bloodied our soil while our history textbooks have adopted a religious colour.

John Locke introduced the idea of separating the church from the state back in the 17th century and since then many countries have adopted this secular, democratic model. In Pakistan, there is a misconception about secularism being ‘anti-religion’ when it is actually ‘religion-neutral’. If we are to make this country a progressive state, we must get rid of obscurantist and reactionary ideas so as to imbibe religious tolerance amongst our ranks and make Pakistan a state that can hold its head up high in today’s world.

Go to Top

A formal go-ahead for the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha dam, given by the government of Pakistan on 18th July, 2010, could only be termed a highly positive development for the country. The significance of this news is really monumental when realised that it is very rare for the federal, and all the provincial governments, to whole-heartedly agree on a project, without some kind of objection from some quarter or a stakeholder.

The decision was reached at the Council of Common Interest (CCI), which met under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and passed a unanimous resolution approving the construction of the dam. The members of the CCI were informed that the dam, to be completed in 2019, would have a storage capacity of 6.4 million acre-feet of water and would produce 4,500 megawatts of electricity. Another encouraging aspect was that the project was likely to pay back its cost within eight years after its completion. Following the approval of the project, the Prime Minister reiterated that "the resolution to approve the Diamer-Bhasha dam strongly reflects a national consensus and would send a positive signal across for the future progress and prosperity of the country".

The prime minister is indeed more than right on this particular issue. The Kalabagh dam issue had generated so much ill-will among the provinces and left the international community confused for such a long time that all the stakeholders were feeling a little piqued by this controversy and now, highly pessimistic about the prospects of the big energy projects in the country. The Bhasha dam project had already been launched, but the progress on its execution was slow. A formal approval by the CCI, on a unanimous basis, would give a clear and strong message to the international community that it is a purely non-controversial project.

According to certain sources, the World Bank had asked the government to get approval of the project, from the parliament, as a precondition for receiving $11.34 billion for the project. With such a solid and strong statement by the CCI in favour of the Bhasha project, the donors will probably have no such reservations, or if the demand still persists, it would be much easier for the government to get the required nod from the parliament. Domestic stakeholders could also now breathe a lot easier. Anyhow, from now onwards and especially after the 18th Amendment, the CCI seems to be destined to play a more effective and visible role in resolving issues and setting priorities for the economic management of the country.

There is hardly any doubt about the highly positive impact of the Diamer-Bhasha dam project on the energy-starved economy of Pakistan. No need to repeat that energy shortages, in the past few years, have severely constrained the country's ability to grow. During 2009-10 alone, the cumulative effect of the energy crisis on the economy was estimated at an upward of 2 percent of the GDP. The side effects of such missed opportunities were also apparent in higher unemployment and growing lawlessness in the country. Besides, the timely completion of the Bhasha project could relieve a great deal of stress on the external sector of the economy and provide a measure of relief to energy consumers.

Recently, lower availability of hydel resources for generation, and a higher than normal shortage of gas, skewed the "fuel mix" of electricity generation towards oil. And since this occurred at a time of a doubling of international oil prices, the effect on the cost structure of the utilities was amplified greatly and the oil import bill of the country rose substantially. Higher electricity generation, from hydel resources, would change the situation for the better. However, while appreciating the latest decision on Bhasha, there are certain factors, which should always be kept in view. Firstly, Bhasha is a long-gestation project, which means that the government has to continue with its efforts to design and implement short-term, viable energy projects.

Secondly, Bhasha would only partly bridge the gap between the supply and demand of electricity and, therefore, there should not be any sense of complacency about designing other long-term energy plans after the approval of this particular project. Many more small and big projects would be needed to satisfy the growing needs of the economy. And lastly, the unanimous resolution on the project does not mean that there would not be differences during the various stages of its implementation, which has to continue up to 2019. The federal government must be prepared to address such troubling issues without politicising the project. Fortunately, the CCI is now powerful enough to resolve differences of opinion, if any, at the earliest, in order to ensure the completion of the project by the stipulated date.

Go to Top

In my column, "A ministry of climate change" (July 13. 2008), I wrote of the need to replace the existing ministry of environment with a ministry of climate change and I spelled out a new role of the federal and provincial Environment Protection Agencies (EPAs)--all in light of the environmental and climate-change challenges faced by Pakistan. It's been two years and one constitutional amendment--the 18th--since, and there are now new reasons, not just in having a ministry of climate change, but to approach the subjects of development and governance in a new light.

The first and most important duty of a state--and those privileged enough to have been given the mandate to operate it--is to protect the lives, liberty and property of its citizens. Not that this state of 170 million souls has been discharging this duty. It barely has control over things now. But consider this: In the not-too-far future (which I define as my four-year old daughter's lifetime), this state will have over 300 million souls to deal with. The repercussions of self-induced environmental degradation and global climate change on this increasing and increasingly impoverished nation will be far more than the state's existing apparatus can handle.

One of the primary tools of that apparatus is the Federal Government Rules of Business. This little guidebook on how the federal bureaucracy functions and which ministry and division does what was written in 1974. Think about it. This was before the world was introduced to things like the personal computer, the internet, globalisation. Things we take for granted in today's world. There was nothing near the awareness people now have of climate change. This was before sustainable development or good governance entered the everyday lexicon.

Climate change will affect Pakistan in a variety of ways. There will be water and energy shortages, food security issues, increased incidence of epidemic disease, ecosystem degradation and mass migration. Climate change will (and does) change lifestyles, livelihoods and will (and does) effect our national economy. Self-induced environmental degradation kills hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis a year (contaminated water is the most lethal killer of all and is responsible for every other Pakistani in a hospital right now) and costs the economy about Rs1 billion a day. That's Rs365 billion a year.

In response to this, the state has a ministry of environment. Under the Rules of Business, the ministry is responsible for eight things. These include the national policy on the environment, planning, pollution and ecology; dealing with other countries and international organisations in the fields of environment, housing, physical planning and human settlement; the Quaid-e-Azam Memorial Fund, the Pakistan Environmental Planning and Architectural Consultants Limited (PEPAC); economic planning and policymaking in respect of forestry and wildlife; and administrative control of the federal EPA, the National Energy Conservation Centre (ENERCON), the National Council for Conservation of Wildlife, the Pakistan Forestry Institute and the Zoological Survey of Pakistan.

According to the Economic Survey 2009-2010, "the government of Pakistan has increased its funds allocation to the environment and sustainable development in its current public-sector development programme. Overall, an allocation of around Rs5,500 million has been made for the environment sector projects in the federal PSDP 2009-10. There are about 55 projects under implementation, which fall in the brown, green and capacity-building components/sub-sectors of environment such as: mass awareness, environmental education and environment protection; preparation of land use plan; fuel efficiency in road transport sector; projected areas management; forestry; biodiversity; watershed management; hospital waste management; environmental monitoring; capacity building of environmental institutions; natural disaster, early warning and mitigation; improvement of urban environment; etc."

Sound convincing? In the very next sentence, the Survey states: "However, release of funds remained a serious issue during the year due to financial crunch being faced by the country." That pretty much sums up the situation. It's clear that the ministry, as it is set up, does not have the capacity, flexibility or funds to do its job--that is, to protect the lives, liberty and property of the citizens of Pakistan. Clearly, something needs to be done.

The 18th Amendment appears to have made matters more complicated. Environmental pollution and ecology have been removed from the Concurrent List and are now wholly provincial subjects. This decentralisation raises issues about the relevance of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997. PEPA is a federal law that regulates the enforcement of National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) and Pakistan's international environmental obligations)--like, among others, the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)--from a federal perspective.

There are many considered views on this decentralisation. At the federal level, there are concerns about coordination. For example, will provinces now be able to set their own NEQs or, worse, totally disregard existing ones? Also, who will implement international obligations and represent Pakistan during the UNFCCC's Conference of Parties negotiations?

The 18th Amendment is also an opportunity to think about and debate how we are to tackle our environmental and climate-change challenges. It is an opportunity to address the larger issue of how our state responds to the issues faced by its people. It's a chance to introduce new ideas. Like this one: Get rid of the ministry of environment and replace it with a ministry of climate change. Such a ministry can retain the previous ministry's responsibility over some national responsibilities (like coordinating the Pakistan Environment Protection Council's power to set NEQs). as well as the international aspects of Pakistan's environmental obligations (like negotiating with other countries, international organisations and the regulation of the Clean Development Mechanism). But it can be a cross-sectoral ministry with climate-change cells in every other ministry of government. Such cells can coordinate the government's efforts to adapt to and mitigate the challenges of climate change.

Enforcement of environmental laws must be strengthened at the provincial level (the enforcement in Islamabad can be, subject to capacity enhancement, handed over to the Capital Development Authority). The provincial EPAs should be made financially independent from government and given more powers, through legislation by the respective provincial assemblies, to chase after polluters and those who make profit at the cost of the health of others. At the same time, something similar to the climate-change cells at the federal level is needed to coordinate the province's overall response to climate change and sustainable development. I suggest altering the scope of the planning and development department by making it a planning and sustainable development department that evaluates the provinces' development spending through the lens of environmental sustainability.

The 18th Amendment offers the government and the people of this country a chance to look at how the state functions and reacts to issues. The environment and climate change can be the pivot upon which reform of the entire system of governance can be rotated and direction fixed. What is needed is understanding from the government and political commitment. Can the state and the present government stand up to the challenge?

Go to Top

THE initial reaction of the actual users of water, the farmers, to the closure of the Chashma-Jhelum link canal, has been unfavourable, as has been shown by the reaction of various farmers’ organisations. They have been sturdily insistent that the closure decision, which came on Tuesday after a meeting of the Sindh and Punjab Chief Ministers, chaired by the Prime Minister, should not affect water supplies to southern Punjab. The Punjab CM gave in to the combined pressure of his Sindh counterpart, and the PM, but the right of Punjab farmers, the country’s most productive, to adequate water for their cotton crop, must not be denied.
The C-J canal had been opened after the then acting IRSA Chairman had ordered the opening. The opponents of the Kalabagh Dam project bring in this canal, which is used to move water from the Indus to South Punjab, as evidence that the Indus’s water will be ‘stolen’ by Punjab. That is not a debate which seems appropriate now, with the cotton crop threatened, though it is worth pointing out that the world powers have noted that Pakistan is able to weather the crises it suffers through its agricultural production, and its ability to feed itself. The water shortage does not only threaten agricultural production, but even the drinking water of southern Punjab.
Instead of using all resources, certain vested interests are preferring to share shortages, made worse by the refusal of some to allow autonomy to others over their own resources. Not only has Sindh obtained a veto over national projects like Kalabagh Dam, but also over how Punjab uses its existing water resources. This cannot be allowed, and the Punjab government, in the interest of maintaining inter-provincial harmony, must not be so ready to sacrifice the interests of the province, especially when they are related to as crucial an issue as irrigation water. The province depends on agriculture for its survival, and thus anything harming production is going to be viewed adversely.

Go to Top

The subcontinent’s leaders never learn from mistakes—their own, or one another’s. Nawaz Sharif’s White Elephant M-2 expressway was one of the greatest scandals in global infrastructure development history. Now, India is about to produce its match—in aviation, by building a $4 billion (Rs12,700 crore) new terminal at Delhi airport. Terminal-3, to be opened soon, is claimed to be the world’s fifth-largest airport terminal, and bigger than Heathrow’s Terminal 5 and Singapore ’s Changi. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh euphorically described T-3 as signifying the “arrival of a new India , committed to join the ranks of modern, industrialised nations …”.

T-3 is being commissioned just when the UK ’s Conservative-led ruling coalition has abandoned plans for a third runway at London ’s Heathrow airport, which Prime Minister David Cameron was keen on. T-3 will be seen by many as a manifestation of the global power shift: China , India and Brazil are ascending while the long-affluent Western economies decline. This over-reads the truth. The Heathrow runway wasn’t abandoned primarily because Britain cannot afford it, but because environmentalists opposed it. With such projects, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation would exceed the UK ’s entire GHG ceiling for 2050.

India’s ruling elite favours gigantic projects in energy-intensive mining, industry, and high capital-cost infrastructure because it sees them as symbols of high modernity and prestige. For South Asia’s rulers, modernity doesn’t mean a society free of religious superstition and fanaticism, caste-ism and gender discrimination in which all citizens can equally develop their potential as free, rational human beings. Rather, their notion of modernity is gigantic, super-expensive buildings which bear no relationship to their function.

This notion is perverse. Saudi Arabia —despite its huge palaces and wide expressways—won’t be considered even remotely modern. Malaysia’s international prestige came from its firmness in resisting the International Monetary Fund’s pressure to open its financial markets during the 1997-98 East Asian crisis, not from the Kuala Lumpur-101, long the world’s tallest building.

Similarly, Beijing hosted the Olympics, and Shanghai built the world’s fastest airport-city link. But that only drew passing admiration. China is more respected for its manufacturing, and export successes, following land reforms and provision of social services which combated poverty. The halo over the Burj Dubai and Mumbai’s 117-storey WorldOne (planned to be the world’s tallest residential building) will soon fade.

So will Terminal-3’s—but only after enormously damaging India ’s transportation policies and its ability to combat climate change, which disproportionately affects underprivileged people. Clearance of the T-3 project was rushed just when Delhi airport’s modernisation-expansion was well advanced. This included a new runway, a brand-new domestic departure terminal for private airlines, and considerable expansion of both the domestic arrivals and the entire international terminal.

This Rs5,000-crore-plus modernisation is creating an annual passenger-handling capacity of 30 million. (Delhi currently only handles 26 million.) This can be modestly expanded to cope with increased future demand with better instruments landing, all-weather radars and air traffic-control systems, faster movement through immigration, and more gates and aerobridges.

All this could have been done incrementally, at low cost. But T-3, with an additional 34 million-passenger capacity, was promoted for prestige—and probably for huge payoffs and kickbacks from sweetheart deals totalling Rs12,000 crores. The contract was awarded to the GMR Group, which has no experience in airport construction. T-3 follows the public-private partnership (PPP) model, based on private profiteering at public expense. PPPs are leading to rising tolls and huge user fees even on rural roads, besides highways and airports.

Manmohan Singh is wrong about prestige. He said T-3 “would be a window to India , the first impression of the country …”. But the visitor’s lasting impression—of general squalor and stupendous rich-poor disparities, visible right outside the terminal—will prevail over the first impression.

T-3 is doubly obscene because 80 percent of the structure is glass. Glass loses 30 percent more warm or cooled air than insulated brick. Its production is expensive and emissions-intensive. It may have limited merit in a cold-climate airport which needs maximum sunlight—but not in Delhi . T-3’s designers mindlessly imitated the West. Similarly, the liberal use of energy-intensive materials like aluminium and marble belies the claim that T-3 is a “green” building.

T-3’s greatest absurdity is that it will add to Delhi ’s long-notorious airspace congestion. Few domestic flights take off or land in Delhi on time; most aircraft circle for 30-60 minutes. This is a tremendous waste of social time and costly fuel. A new terminal will worsen the congestion.

Projects like T-3 are being promoted in India on the specious plea that civil aviation is a public good and indicates social progress. But globally, aviation is increasingly seen as a social liability. Air travel is a major contributor of GHG emissions. Exhausts from airplanes, containing potent GHGs besides carbon dioxide, are 2.7 times more harmful at the altitude at which they occur than on the ground. Affluent air-travellers’ emissions significantly widen global GHG disparities.

Worldwide, sensible policymakers are seeking alternatives to planes, including trains, airships and waterways. The greatest alternative is reorganising cities to limit long-distance travel—and thus carbon footprints and travel bills. All of South Asia should join such efforts before addiction to air travel even for casual/holiday trips grows among their elites, and powerful private aviation lobbies capture policy-making.

India and Pakistan are poor countries where only a minuscule minority can afford to fly. We shouldn’t delude ourselves that aviation will become affordable for the millions who cannot even give their children enough nutrition. During the low-airfare peak, only three per cent of Indians flew.

We must develop climate-friendly alternatives to flying. Trains are an excellent example. Today, the Delhi-Mumbai Rajdhani takes 16-17 hours to cover 1,400 km. If it can be accelerated to the global level of high-speed trains, it will cross the distance between the two city centres, the most convenient points, in about four hours. This is less than current flying time (2 hours), city-to-airport transit time, plus check-in margins. Most travellers would prefer trains to planes—as they do between Paris and Lyon, Madrid and Barcelona , and Tokyo and Kyoto. Similarly, there’s no reason why the Lahore-Islamabad distance (360 km) can’t be covered in one-and-a-half hours by rail.

Trains consume only about one-quarter as much energy as planes, and emit much less GHGs. Speeding up trains will need large emissions-relevant investments. But these would be only a fraction of what it costs to replicate White Elephants like T-3 and other emissions-intensive aviation infrastructure.

Singh was obviously delighted when he said Indian aviation can “absorb” up to $120 billion (Rs564,000 crores) of investment by 2020. India could do wonders with such money for its healthcare, education and social security. Alternatively, it could build a first-class surface transport network appropriate to its needs. The sum represents one-eighth of India ’s GDP. Should we blow up such colossal sums on socially low-priority aviation, and on super-expensive ecologically unsound projects like T-3?

It’s time to radically rethink our transportation and urban development policies in the light of equity, inclusiveness, energy efficiency and climate responsibility.

Go to Top

I WAS group commander of the Frontier Works Organisation in 1979, responsible for the maintenance of the Karakoram Highway (KKH). The Chinese were carrying out repair work at the Khunjerab–Halegush section (160km) which was earlier built by them in the early 1970s but that was seriously damaged due to glacial movement and landslides.

In addition to the repair of roads and the maintenance of structures, two bridges were being constructed which were destroyed by landslides/glacier movement.

The movement of the Batura glacier (the third longest in the world) had destroyed the bridge on KKH between Passu and Khyber. The Chinese constructed a bailey bridge and abutments resting on deep-reaching concrete piles. The idea was that if the bridge was damaged it could be quickly replaced and the abutment resting on the piles would remain intact or could be repaired easily.

The 400-metre-long Shishkat Bridge was constructed using pile foundation and steam-cured precast concrete beams. The super structure was constructed in 60 days and I am witness to it. This was a replacement bridge as the Friendship Bridge constructed three kilometres upstream had gone under water as a glacier had moved the debris from the left and blocked the Hunza River creating a five-kilometre lake. This was in 1974.

Ideas were floated that explosives could be used to remove the blockage. Air power too was considered but the Pakistan Air Force declined and the lake remained where it was for over six years. The Chinese constructed a bridge at Shishkat as well as a road restoring traffic in September 1979. The army was operating a ferry for vehicles. Six vehicles could be accommodated per trip. Six to eight crossings were made daily and in keeping with typical Pakistani fashion over 100 soldiers were used for pulling the raft.

When I came in July 1979 the Chinese team leader asked me why we were wasting so much manpower. He procured a winch (steel wire rope) operated with an electric motor and cable. Using the winch at least three trips could be made every hour and 100 soldiers were spared the torture.

The present landslide which is downstream of the previous one is much larger and involved slides from mountain slopes. In this case, there is no way the mountain debris can be removed by machinery. The so-called spillway (really a cunnet) can channel the flow of the river if the water rises beyond its level. Obviously a wider or deeper cunnet could not be constructed due to fear of further landslides. The situation may take years to resolve itself. This was a much bigger landslide than the one in 1974 and the consequences may well take 10 years to resolve.

A ferry operation should be started to enable 100 vehicles per day to cross over so that traffic can be resumed. This is not difficult as the army can easily spare the equipment and restore traffic to China. Affected people should be rehabilitated downstream. Instead of keeping them in camps, they should be given land downstream of Karimabad up to Danyore. There is no point wasting money in waiting.

It should be pointed out that a 1970 landslide at Subri because of heavy rainfall blocked the Jhelum River (Azad Kashmir) within six hours, six kilometres upstream of Muzaffarabad, (At that time the Mangla Dam had been in place for six years). Nature has immense power and nothing can be done to counter it when it is unleashed. The Subri landslide created a lake in the Jhelum River which remained in place for over five years. The road which came under water had to be realigned and a number of bridges upstream were destroyed. Even at that time it was suggested that it could be blasted but it was not a wise idea as thousands of tons of boulders and debris were involved.

In 1928 the Indus was blocked and later due to high floods even the railway line between Attock Bridge and Jhangira came under water. There was a huge backflow in the Kabul River flooding Nowshera. However, the Indus is a large river and the size of the floods that emanate from it are enormous compared to those of the Hunza River where the maximum discharge could not exceed 15,000 cusecs while Indus flood was over 300,000 cusecs. As such there is no chance that a flood in the Hunza River can move this slide.

Another case is that of the Bolan Dam downstream of Sibi where there was an 80-foot-high earthen dam without any spillway. Water had never risen up to height of the dam but in 1976 water overtopped it. I was asked to do something as I was commanding an engineer battalion in Quetta. I advised that the population living downstream be evacuated, which was done. Nothing could be done to control the rising water as after the overtopping the dam did not last even one hour. The Bolan Dam was an earthen dam some 25 metres high with a base of 15 metres.

In the current case, criticism that government could have done more is misplaced. The cunnet which was constructed was a wise and only workable solution. The Hunza slide has debris weighing millions of tons and it is not possible to remove it. The government has failed in its responsibility by not providing a ferry service for vehicles/people and by not providing alternate land to those affected. The lake is going to be around for long.

Go to Top

Pakistan has been suffering from an energy crisis for about half a decade now. The power crisis is proving to be unbearable. The sad state of affairs is that despite having enormous renewable resources of energy, Pakistan has to import a huge amount of hydrocarbons from abroad to meet its energy needs. As recently as 2001, the country had 4,000 megawatts of excess power capacity. Today unfortunately the situation has gained threatening prospects. According to a research most of the high enthalpy geothermal resources of the world lie within the seismic belts passing through Pakistan. Pakistan has a history of geotectonic events. Tectonic plates are segments of earth’s lithosphere, hard rocky outer shell. Hence this geothermal energy can be exploited in a better sense of the term. The major resources of energy are oil, gas, petroleum products, coal, nuclear, solar, biomass and wind energy.

Let us chalk out the reasons for shortage of energy. Lopsided priorities, poor management and lack of accountability can be denoted as the reasons for dearth of energy in Pakistan. The number of consumers of electricity are now increased owing to the rapid urbanization process. The facility of electricity is now provided to the remote villages. We waste a lot of energy, about 15 to 20 percent through poor distribution system. Industrial, transport and domestic sectors are the three important consumers of energy. It is assumed that a misplaced use of energy is rampant in industries which need to be curtailed.

Few years back Pakistan used to get half of its electricity from hydel power and remaining from thermal generation. However there is a limit to the extent of exploitation of hydel resources and thermal power plants due to environmental and other concerns. Modalities for overcoming the energy crisis are multifold. To meet the challenge there is a dire need to go to the alternate sources of energy. Some people suggest that process of converting coal into product gas underground can be a good alternate source of energy. Technically this process is called as underground coal classification. Through this the underground deposit of coal is treated with controlled fire. Gradually the coal turns into gas. The largest coal reserves of Pakistan exist in Thar. There this source can be encashed.

Besides coal, the renewable energy as biomass has solutions to our problems. Biomass, material derived from plants or animals, includes wastes, agricultural residues and garbage. It is suggested that subsidies and tax concessions must be provided for importing machinery for establishing biogas power plants in Pakistan. It can prove to be a great source of energy for us as Pakistan is an agricultural country. Come to solar energy panels, though initial cost of installing solar panels is comparatively high but through them the highest levels of efficiency can be reached. I visited Balochistan recently and was really surprised to see the great solar potential there. It is not only the valley of minerals but it has a lot of wind and solar energy, having a scattered habitat and ample sunshine. But to my utter dismay the number of solar panels installed there were very few. Some important advantages which favour the use of solar energy use in Pakistan include low operational and maintenance cost, environment friendly dimension etc.

Similarly the wind energy is also in excess and we can harness this energy in a much more effective way. Wind can be utilized to produce electricity at the coastal areas. If power plants are set up driven by the wind energy along the coastline and this venture is handed over to foreign investors, the results can be quite satisfactory. Manufacture of wind generators can be made indigenously. Still other sources apart from hydel and thermal which can meet the growing demand nuclear energy can also overcome the energy needs. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission has developed a large infrastructure to manufacture equipment for power but even then we are not able to make considerable progress in the nuclear field.

More and more nuclear reactors for power generation must be built. Similarly, hot climatic conditions of some areas of upper Sindh and Southern Punjab may prove to be a source of solar energy. We have to devise bold and concrete ways on a war footing to overcome the electricity deficit coupled with an instant change in attitude at the earliest. The Quaid-i-Azam said: “Let us mobilize all our resources in a systematic and organized way and tackle the grave issues that confront us with grim determination and discipline worthy of a great nation.” Therefore the consolidation of the domestic resource mobilization is a call of the time. A collective national effort is needed to face the challenge .Prompt measures need to be taken by the government. The belated response will only add up to more problems.

One other suggestion is that the existing thermal power plants running on expensive imported furnace oil can be converted into natural gas and afterwards to coal. The government can go for establishing a government body for fixing targets for development of power sectors. Ways must also be devised to stop power theft besides transmission and distribution losses. The long transmission lines connecting grid with hydel stations are faced with transmission losses. These hydel stations are located mostly in the north of the country while thermal units are mainly installed in the centre and southern areas of Pakistan.

Political controversies relating to Kalabagh dam must be resolved. In this connection seminars and media can play a good role. If there is a need the modifications in design may also be suggested.

Go to Top

THERE is no shortage of energy in Pakistan. Notwithstanding the sporadic suspensions in the supply of electricity, during a sojourn in Lahore earlier this month, I found myself confronted every day with evidence of reasonably energetic demonstrations and protests related to a broad spectrum of issues ranging from hepatitis awareness to appalling delays in the payment of salaries to government employees.

Oodles of newsprint and endless hours of air time on the numerous television news channels are being devoted, meanwhile, to the relentless confrontation between the executive and the judiciary. Keen to deflect attention from its multiple woes, the government has adopted, inter alia, the strategy of demanding that the Supreme Court make former military dictator Pervez Musharraf answerable for the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) he introduced nearly three years ago.

Musharraf — who has lately indicated an eagerness to re-enter the political fray at an opportune moment, at the helm of yet another faction of the Pakistan Muslim League (one can only wonder whether any other political party anywhere in the world has experienced quite as many incarnations) — has much to answer for, but it’s hardly a secret that he wasn’t particularly keen on the NRO.

He was pushed towards it by an Anglo-American alliance that had begun to doubt the general’s fealty and wanted him to share power with Benazir Bhutto — who had succeeded yet again in convincing Washington and London that her loyalty to the West was second to none.

She was understandably unwilling, though, to risk incarceration or face the courts on her return to Pakistan. Hence the NRO, barring which, chances are she would have remained in exile — and alive. It is therefore somewhat facetious for her heirs — apparent or presumptive — to seek to shift the blame for legislation without which they could hardly have hoped to occupy the posts they hold today.

Far more remarkable, though, is evidence of their unwillingness to investigate the circumstances of Benazir’s assassination. The committee of inquiry instituted to find out who ordered the scene of the crime to be scrubbed clean before much forensic evidence could be collected offers a classic instance of tragedy being turned into farce, reinforcing suspicions that the Zardari regime has little interest in conclusively establishing who killed Benazir.

The haste with which Asif Ali Zardari pardoned his leading lieutenant, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, after the latter faced arrest following the Lahore High Court’s decision to turn down his appeal in a corruption-related conviction, shows, meanwhile, that the president is quite capable of quick action when the stakes are sufficiently high. It was equally unsurprising that when federal ministers were instructed to be present at this week’s NRO-related Supreme Court appearance by the law minister, Babar Awan, the interior minister was exempted from that obligation.

It may well be purely coincidental that Malik and Awan were both passengers in the designated back-up vehicle that singularly failed to come to Benazir’s aid during her moments of direct need on Dec 27, 2007, but all manner of uncomplimentary conjecture is inevitable in the absence of even a semi-credible explanation for this apparently odd behaviour.

Throw in concerns about whether it’s entirely constitutional for Zardari to be simultaneously head of state and co-chairman of the PPP, whether it’s acceptable for a so-called core committee to supersede the party’s national executive, and potentially disastrous disagreements with a leading ally, the MQM, and there can be little question that the government was desperate for a circuit-breaker. And, sure enough, a distraction turned up.

The bizarre demonstrations against a social networking website were not unprecedented: we’ve been there before, in the context of the Danish cartoons a few years ago, and before that the controversy over Salman Rushdie’s The SatanicVerses. In both those cases, it would have made considerable sense to ignore the ostensible provocations. Yet those who took offence played a monumental role in publicising Rushdie’s mediocre novel and the caricatures that would otherwise have remained restricted to a minuscule section of the European press,

Likewise, the campaign against the page on Facebook calling for making drawings of the Prophet (PBUH) ensured widespread dissemination of what is, at best, an irrelevance. It could safely be said that the majority of the protesters who took to the streets in many a Pakistani city and town would have found it difficult to explain to anyone the nature of the Internet, let alone the particularities of Facebook.

A complaint led the Lahore High Court (LHC) to decree that Facebook — the entire website, not just the offending page — be blocked until the end of the month. Similar action followed against YouTube and a further 800 websites. The legal bans are likely to be renewed when they expire. But why stop there? Why not outlaw the Internet altogether? That may not save much electricity, but it will surely help to keep the nation shrouded in ignorance; it could serve as a virtual burka without so much as a slit for sore eyes.

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the Internet knows, no user is obliged to visit any given page. In other countries, efforts to block websites pandering to paedophiles or disseminating racist or obscurantist venom have generally been less than completely successful. The Internet’s incredible usefulness as a tool easily overrides its potential as a repository for all manner of nonsense. Censorship, broadly, has thus far proved futile.

Those likely to be offended by irreverent caricatures should effortlessly be able to avoid calling them up on their screens. The fact that the provocation primarily elicited a response only from sections of Pakistani society could be misconstrued as substantiation of their self-ordained status as outstanding defenders of the faith. In fact it only serves as evidence of dense narrow-mindedness.

In Pakistan today, there is no dearth of issues about which citizens ought to get worked up. But there really should be no place on the list for a solitary Facebook page. In this context at least, there’s considerably greater common sense in the rest of the Muslim world’s relative indifference to an irrelevant provocation. The Islamophobic intent of some of the contributors to the Facebook event is unlikely, in the final analysis, to stir half as much prejudice as the fanatical Pakistani reaction.

Go to Top

HERE’S the great secret about Pakistan: we aren’t as poor as we like to think. Over the years I’ve travelled a fair bit around our country. I’ve ridden on the back of a motorbike in Gwadar, walked down streets in Karachi, explored bazaars in Peshawar.

I’ve hiked in Skardu, fished (unsuccessfully) in Naran, sat down to a meal in a village outside Multan. I’m no expert, but I believe what my eyes tell me. And there’s no doubt about it: times are incredibly tough.

For most Pakistanis, meat is a luxury. Drinking water is contaminated with urine, faeces or industrial chemicals. School is a building that exists only on paper or otherwise employs a teacher who is barely literate. Electricity is so intermittent as to be almost a force of nature, like rain or a breeze.

The budget says our government plans to raise in taxes about Rs1.5tr this year. There are some 170 million people in our country. So that comes to roughly Rs9,000 each per year. Which is a little over Rs700 for each of us every month.

That isn’t much. Yes, we get money from other sources. We borrow, and sell off state assets, and ask for aid from anyone willing to give it to us. But still, what we can raise ourselves in taxes accounts for most of what our government can spend. And when you’re looking at getting enough power plants and teacher training and low-income support and (since we seem intent on buying them) F-16s for the world’s sixth most populous country, the equivalent of a large Pizza Hut pizza in taxes for each of us every month doesn’t go very far.

Why isn’t Pakistan delivering what we hope for? Because of dictatorships, or India, or the Americans? Well, maybe. But these days a large part of the reason is this: we citizens aren’t paying enough for Pakistan to flourish.

On my travels around our country I haven’t just seen malnourished children and exhausted farmers and hardworking 40-year-old women who look like they’re 80. I’ve also seen huge ancestral landholdings and giant textile factories and Mobilink offices with lines of customers stretching out the door. I’ve seen shopkeepers turn up to buy Honda Civics with cash. I’ve seen armies of private security guards, fleets of private electricity generators. I’ve seen more handwritten non-official receipts than I can possibly count.

Many of our rich have tens of millions of dollars in assets. And our middle class numbers tens of millions of people. The resources of our country are enormous. We’ve just made a collective decision not to use them.

We pay only about 10 per cent of our GDP in taxes. (Our GDP is our total economy, what all of us together earn in a year.) Meanwhile, Sri Lankans pay 15 per cent of their GDP in taxes, Indians pay 17 per cent, Turks pay 24 per cent, Americans pay 28 per cent and Swedes pay a fat 50 per cent. We Pakistanis pay a pittance in comparison.

And that is fabulous news. Because it can change. Raising taxes doesn’t depend on foreign policy, getting a wink from Uncle Sam or a nod from King so-and-so. It doesn’t require a breakthrough in technology or a year of good rain. It’s under our control.

What would happen, for example, if we raised tax revenues by a fifth, so from 10 per cent of GDP to 12 per cent? Well, that would give us Rs300bn a year. We could use that to rent a million classrooms for Rs10,000 per month, give jobs as teachers to a million graduates for Rs15,000 per month, and ensure that every single child in our country received a decent education. By raising taxes to the level of Sri Lanka, 15 per cent of GDP, we would generate additional revenue equal to twice our official defence budget. Match India at 17 per cent of GDP and the additional money would equal a staggering 25 times our current education, health and housing budgets combined.

So if you are a progressive who wants the state to do more to help the poor, you should support more taxes. If you are an industrialist who wants to see that Taliban recruits are rehabilitated and retrained, you should support more taxes. If you are a professional who wants electricity and better police, you should support more taxes. If you are an anti-American who wants us to stop taking US aid, you should support more taxes. If you are a diehard militarist who wants us to buy lots of F-16s, you should support more taxes.

The only people who shouldn’t support more taxes are those who think that the situation in Pakistan right now is already too good.

Taxes are the big hope for Pakistan. It isn’t complicated. Anyone who says we can’t solve our problems or afford to give our people a decent standard of living isn’t telling the truth. We can afford it. We’ve just chosen not to.

This is where our democracy can make a difference. We have elected our representatives. Horribly imperfect as they are, they represent us. And because they represent us, they have the right to ask us to act in our shared self-interest, to contribute more to the collective pot that is Pakistan. It seems they are starting to do so. And perhaps rampant inflation and a dozen hours of loadshedding a day are making even many formerly comfortable and tax-averse citizens more amenable to change.

But what about corruption? Yes, there’s no doubt that much of officialdom is corrupt. But so are we, the citizens. Every time we accept a fake receipt, or fail to declare a bit of income, we are stealing from our country in precisely the same way our politicians and bureaucrats are. Our thefts as taxpayers might be comparatively small, but that is because taxes are so low in our country to begin with. At the moment, we feed off each other. As we citizens start to display more probity in tax, we’re likely to demand more probity in how our money is spent, and our strengthening courts and media are likely to help us get it.

The tax revolution is not going to happen overnight. It will take time. But there is good reason to hope it is coming, and to slowly shift the weight of our votes, our accounts and our attitudes to support the right side.

A brighter future awaits us if we’re willing to pay for it.

The writer is the author of the novels Moth Smoke and The Reluctant Fundamentalist.

Go to Top

PAKISTAN’S growing electricity troubles that result in soaring prices demand that low-cost, indigenous fuels like coal be utilised for power generation. Coal is being used worldwide as a major source of energy despite global warming concerns. Currently, it constitutes 30 per cent of the total energy mix in America, China and India, the three major economic powers. But official lethargy and bias against coal-based generation has so far prevented exploitation of the vast reserves of Sindh and Punjab. Instead, the authorities have encouraged (the depleting) gas resource as an alternative to furnace oil for generation. Consequently, we have only one coal-based power plant in Lakhra. But attitudes are undergoing a change. The government realises that thermal power based on imported fuels is making electricity unaffordable and dragging down growth. It is also putting pressure on its budget. Though electricity produced from coal-fired power plants is more expensive than that generated from hydel sources, it is cheaper than energy generated from gas and costs only a fraction of power produced from furnace oil. The prime minister’s recent announcement to produce 35,000MW of electricity from coal-based projects reflects this change in official policy. The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority has also advised the Private Power and Infrastructure Board to encourage projects to be run on imported coal until the Thar deposits are exploited and used for generation because furnace oil is becoming unaffordable.

The inferior quality of local coal is believed to have delayed the utilisation of this resource. Investors have shied away from putting their money in coal mining because the mineral has no domestic usage and has no buyers in foreign countries. The establishment of power plants will make coal mining in the country profitable for investors. A private investor is trying to set up a 1,200MW coal power plant in Sindh that will use Thar coal as fuel for generation. Its successful setting up will pave the way for more coal-based generation. Nevertheless it is the official resolve to shift power generation to coal that will actually determine the future of coal-based power generation in the country.

Go to Top