A New Security Architecture’: Global Analysts As…

By Misbah Naz   Democracy derives its legitimacy from the principle that political power belongs to the people. Every citizen, regardless of family background, wealth, or social status, should have an equal opportunity to participate in governance and compete for public office. Yet, across many democracies, political power often remains concentrated within a handful of influential families. This phenomenon, commonly known as dynastic politics, raises an important question: can democracy truly flourish when leadership becomes a family inheritance? Political dynasties are not unique to one country or region. They exist in established and emerging democracies alike. From South Asia to North America, prominent political families have shaped electoral politics for decades. While family members have every democratic right to contest elections, democracy suffers when political succession depends more on lineage than merit. One of the greatest strengths of democracy is political equality. Elections are intended to provide a level playing field where ideas, competence, and public service determine electoral success. Dynastic politics undermines this principle by granting inherited political advantages. Established family names often enjoy greater access to party leadership, campaign financing, media exposure, and political networks than ordinary citizens. Consequently, capable individuals without influential backgrounds frequently struggle to enter mainstream politics. Dynastic politics also weakens internal democracy within political parties. Instead of selecting candidates through transparent and competitive processes, leadership positions may be concentrated within a single family or close associates. This discourages talented young leaders, limits political innovation, and reduces accountability. Political parties become personality-driven rather than institution-driven, making leadership transitions more dependent on family succession than democratic competition. Another concern is the weakening of public trust. Citizens expect elected representatives to prioritize national interests over personal or family influence. When political office appears to be inherited across generations, many voters begin to question whether democratic institutions genuinely offer equal opportunities. Declining trust in political institutions can reduce electoral participation, increase political polarization, and create public frustration with democratic governance. Political dynasties may also influence policymaking. Long-standing political families often develop extensive patronage networks that reward loyal supporters through appointments, contracts, or political favors. Such systems can encourage nepotism and undermine merit-based governance. Public institutions function most effectively when appointments are based on competence rather than political loyalty or family connections. Young people are particularly affected by dynastic politics. Across many developing democracies, youth constitute a significant proportion of the population, yet they remain underrepresented in political leadership. When political pathways are dominated by established families, emerging leaders with innovative ideas face structural barriers to participation. This disconnect between political leadership and demographic realities limits democratic renewal and policy innovation. However, it is equally important to avoid oversimplification. Belonging to a political family does not automatically make an individual an ineffective leader. Democratic principles do not prohibit relatives of politicians from contesting elections. The fundamental issue is whether they compete under fair conditions and remain accountable to voters. If political success is achieved through transparent elections, strong institutions, and genuine public support, democratic legitimacy remains intact. Problems arise when inherited influence consistently outweighs merit and competition. Strengthening democracy therefore requires institutional reforms rather than targeting individuals. Political parties should adopt transparent candidate selection procedures, encourage internal elections, and provide opportunities for grassroots leadership. Independent election commissions, campaign finance regulations, and stronger parliamentary oversight can further reduce undue political concentration. Equally important is an informed electorate that evaluates candidates on integrity, competence, policy vision, and public service instead of family legacy alone. Democracy is sustained not merely by regular elections but by equal political opportunity. Societies flourish when leadership emerges through merit, accountability, and public confidence rather than inheritance. Political dynasties may continue to exist in democratic systems, but they should never become substitutes for democratic competition. Ultimately, the health of any democracy depends on whether every citizen—not just those born into influential families—has a genuine chance to lead.

By Laraib Ehsan “A nation does not only lose lives to terrorism it loses opportunities, confidence, and the promise of a peaceful future.” For over two decades, Pakistan has been at the forefront of the global war on terror. From suicide attacks on crowded marketplaces and educational institutions to the bombing of mosques, military facilities, and public infrastructure; terrorism has had an impact on the social fabric, economy, and politics of this nation. Despite progress achieved by Pakistan through the execution of extensive military and counter-terrorism operations, the revival of militant violence in recent years reminds us that the fight against terrorism requires continued vigilance. The true cost of terrorism is calculated not only in terms of the number of casualties but also in terms of the number of lives ruined, people displaced from their homes, and development hampered. According to the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) 2025 prepared by the Institute for Economics and Peace, Pakistan has been one of the countries worst affected by terrorism in 2024. The report showed a sharp rise in the number of terrorist attacks and casualties as a result of the increase in militant activity in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. These two provinces have become the focal point of Pakistan’s current security threats where civilians, law enforcement officials, and government sites are regularly attacked. According to Security Report of the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies 2025, presents equally worrying data. As per the report, 699 cases of terrorism were reported in Pakistan in 2025 leading to 1034 deaths and 1366 injuries occurring across the country.125 out of those killed included 354 civilians, 437 security personnel, and 243 militants. These statistics show that the phenomenon of terrorism has affected all parts of Pakistan, ranging from ordinary citizens to those responsible for ensuring the security of the state. Among all the provinces, Balochistan has suffered the most. It is rich in natural resources and significant in terms of strategic sites like Gwadar Port. Balochistan has seen not only attacks on law enforcement agencies, but also attacks on people, industrial workers, logistics, and infrastructure. Such incidents lead to loss of life as well as the reluctance of investors to invest in the region. A similar situation is happening in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, with the major part of this region being made up of the merged districts along the border with Afghanistan. According to official statements of the Government of Pakistan and ISPR, the majority of the latest attacks were conducted by Fitna al-Khawarij, which is the official name given to Pakistani authorities to the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The authorities have stated that such organizations try to exploit the safe havens they have across the border to carry out attacks on civilians and military personnel. The Impact caused by terrorism cannot be measured only in figures. Each attack leaves communities sorrowful, resulting in the creation of orphans, damaging lives, and making people unsure in the future. Schools are closed, businesses stop working, and basic health services are absent from such areas. The recent case Indicates that the threat is present. In 2025 and 2026, Pakistan witnessed multiple occurrences of deadly attacks in Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa aimed at security convoys, passenger transport systems, and public gatherings. One of the worst attacks was on the Jaffar Express train in Baluchistan as it targeted a passenger train carrying hundreds of civilians. The attack resulted in loss of lives, injuries to passengers, and large-scale rescue operations conducted by the security forces of Pakistan, along with other implications of terrorism, transportation disruptions, and psychological impact on travel. Despite the challenges facing Pakistan, the response of the country has always been multifaceted. It has employed its intelligence operations to respond to the attacks and adopted innovative methods for border management and coordination of various institutions in civilian and military spheres. Nevertheless, the recurring incidents of terror underline that military effects on terrorism cannot by themselves eliminate terrorism. Pakistan has made immense sacrifices during the last 20 years, with thousands of civilians dead and armed forces, police, Frontier Corps, and other law enforcement agencies sacrificing their lives for the security of their country. The strategy adopted by Pakistan against terrorism has changed substantially in the last twenty years. After a series of deadly terrorist incidents in Pakistan, the country implemented a wide-ranging counter terrorism policy consisting of military actions, intelligence sharing, border protection, and legal modifications. These operations, Operation Zarb-e-Azb (2014) and Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad (2017), destroyed terrorist facilities and disrupted the networks of terrorists working in the country. As stated in the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), these operations led to the reduction of many terrorist organizations’ efficiency and helped restore state authority in previously affected territory. The Pakistan Army, together with the Pakistan Air Force, the Pakistan Navy, the Frontier Corps, the Police, and the intelligence services, has played a key role during the fight against terrorism in Pakistan. Thousands of soldiers and officers have become martyrs while saving civilian lives, defending borders, and conducting different intelligence led operations. Their sacrifices are in addition to the sacrifice made by police officers, rescuers, doctors, and ordinary people and represent one of the most significant contributions of Pakistan to the fight against terrorism in the world. Although military methods have diminished the power of terrorist organizations, specialists claim that it is not possible to defeat terrorism only by military efforts. As specified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), one of the most efficient means of fighting against terrorists is to stop their financing. Even though Pakistan has enhanced its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing system in recent years, it is necessary to keep on practicing this idea and cooperating with other countries in order to avoid the rebirth of terrorist organizations. The economic Impact of terrorism is equally dangerous. The Pakistan Economic Surveys show that since 2001 terrorism has caused Pakistan direct and indirect economic damages of more than $150 billion. Namely, these damages include destroyed infrastructure, decreased foreign investments, reduced number of tourists,

Kashi with its rich culture is becoming a hub of tourism, industry. Despite being very close to Pakistan border with Kashi, the aerial trade is being very limited. We are not making a full use of our land link with China. That is not passing a positive impact for the regional economy. Our natural reserves for mines and minerals are one of the biggest resource that we can exchange with China; such as an export for the raw material using the land route, what more specifically if our gov is very vigilant, they can invite the Chinese investors from this region specifically, to extract mines and minerals, but thing that can change the economy of this entire region mainly depends if we can convince Chinese investors to invest in this particular region of Gilgit for the purification of metals. Vice President Pakistan-China Joint Chamber The other best way is the tourism and the hospitality. We need to engage the tourism groups who can be helpful to attract the Chinese people who want to cross over Khunjarab pass to Pakistan. I have noticed many people of this region very much interested to cross the Khunjarab pass to get an access to Pakistan side. Further I want to make you sure that the plateau of the Pakistan side is considered to be one of the most beautiful natural plateau in the world. Culturally this area have been preserved very well, including the ancient buildings such as centuries old. Food is one of the best attraction and the delicacies, it is commonly believed that Ice cream originally started from this region. Similarly, there is a long route which is called the inner wall of the city have a long cue of traditional restaurants with hundreds of options. Paya the lamb foot, is named the same in Kashi language same as pulao, naan, kabab, and many other words. I have never seen a variety of naans in all over sub continent. The same i saw only in Kashi. They also produced a qeema naan (meat) which is one of the delicacy of this region. I conceived an idea that the concept of pizza and spaghettis was stolen by Marco Polo in the 13th century from this region and was taken to Italy. That is why till today spaghettis and pizza is one a famous dish in Italy. But nowhere else in Europe. Bar b que globally I have been to many countries but the best natural taste of bar b que is in this region. Mostly they use lamb, sheep, and beef to make this bar b que. Similarly, pulao was originated from Xinjiang in this region. So, it traveled all the way to subcontinent. The pulao I tasted in Kashi, was one of the best delicacy. It added up with dried grapes. They also love to serve it with the yogurt. Kabab, shawarma have many kind of faces, the region have a lot of shapes for kabab mostly by the meat of sheep. These people like to eat the fats more often Ly than our region. The weather of this area is very harsh as it climbs p to 40 degrees in hot season while drop down to minus -25 in the cold season. Because of this harsh weather the living condition of the normal people have totally been changed. This harsh weather physically converted theses people as a very tough nation. But the other impact of this weather is that this area is mostly dry and even the mountains are mostly barren. Tea is one of a natural product of this area with many kind of teas to be offered. Flower tea is one of the famous tea from this area which is commonly believed to keep a face fresh. But there are multiple kind of teas available in this region. Walking through the streets of Kashi there are hundred of shops, as I mentioned dry fruits are one of the basic product of this region, I have never seen the variety of dry fruits that I found in Kashgar, is indescribable. They are genuine dry fruit lovers providing of hundreds of kinds of dry fruit. The way they preserve it and roast it with the honey, this technology we may need to learn from them. The use of metal and handicrafts especially in the form of brass I have observed are the best in the whole world. Where the use of art work by hand was even more inspiring. Alladin was one of the story that we listen from our childhood, actually this story was also originated in this region. Same as Alibaba, which is one of the oldest tale we always listening from centuries. And who can forget the famous stories of Ali baba with forty thieves. These all stories were originated from the same region. The beauty of this area along with the traditional dresses of the girls that are still very popular in subcontinent. There were a lot of tea houses with a history of more than a hundred years traditionally serving their local tea. Most of the tea houses have the people playing their traditional music and that is so fascinating that you can spend hours to listens that music. The rhythm will really mesmerize you. In my next article I will describe about the traditional restaurants and their dances as performance. To be continued..

By Ali Hiader A certain segment in Pakistan has been gaining momentum in arguing that had dictator General Pervez Musharraf—like Imran Khan—said “Absolutely Not” to Washington, Pakistan might have been spared the scourge of terrorism and the subsequent economic hardships. However, such an argument attempts to view the decision made in 2001 through the lens of circumstances that emerged years later. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, shook the United States and sent shockwaves through the global order; approximately 3,000 people lost their lives, and institutions regarded globally as symbols of American economic and military might were targeted. These attacks challenged the security of the world’s sole superpower and generated intense public pressure on the President George W. Bush’s administration to take retaliatory action. For the United States, inaction had become politically almost impossible. Responsibility for these attacks was attributed to Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden—a Saudi national who was living in Afghanistan under Taliban protection. Initially, Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks, but his later statements increasingly portrayed as a retaliatory response to American policies. Regardless of how these statements were interpreted politically, by the end of 2001, it was clear to Washington that Al-Qaeda was the primary enemy and that Afghanistan was the hub of its operations. This context holds particular significance for Pakistan because the Taliban government was harboring Osama bin Laden. Pakistan was not merely a distant spectator to this crisis; it shared a long border with Afghanistan and had spent two decades during the Cold War establishing an extensive political and intelligence network there. Consequently, the United States had no better option than Pakistan. Therefore, the fundamental question is: Did Pakistan truly have the option to simply say “absolutely not,” instead of joining the American war? Pakistan was already grappling with severe economic and diplomatic vulnerabilities during the post-9/11 crisis, as the United States and other Western nations had imposed harsh economic sanctions following the 1998 nuclear tests. These sanctions slowed the pace of development, hampered foreign investment, and strained relations with global financial institutions, leaving the country already burdened by heavy debt. The situation became further complicated when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in October 1999, overthrowing an elected government. The military coup added fuel to the fire, further damaging Pakistan’s global reputation and leaving the country diplomatically weakened at a time when it needed international support the most. Following the September 11 attacks, Washington made its expectations absolutely clear. According to Musharraf’s own account, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage delivered a stern message to Pakistan: it had to stand either with the United States or against it. Another remark widely attributed to the US position was that if Pakistan refused to cooperate, it could be sent “back to the Stone Age.” Although the exact wording of that phrase was never officially substantiated, the intensity of US pressure was undeniable. Did the United States have the capability to inflict devastating damage on Pakistan, despite Pakistan being a nuclear power? The answer to this is “yes.” Pakistan’s nuclear capability was primarily developed to deter India. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal provided Islamabad with a strategic deterrent against its key regional rival, but this did not mean Pakistan was immune to American economic, diplomatic, or technological pressure. Pakistan lacked the long-range military capabilities to directly strike the U.S. mainland—located 7,000 miles away—whereas the United States held an overwhelming advantage in air power, naval strength, intelligence, technology, financial resources, and global diplomatic influence. Therefore, nuclear weapons were not synonymous with strategic parity with the United States. Pakistan could deter certain types of aggression from India, but realistically, it lacked the capability to inflict the same level of damage upon the United States. Another major reason for Pakistan’s importance to the United States was the intelligence network present in Afghanistan. During the Cold War, Pakistan was one of the United States’ key regional partners in supporting the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation. Pakistani intelligence agencies established extensive networks among Afghan groups, while the United States and Saudi Arabia provided arms and financial support for the resistance. Pakistan served as a crucial conduit for channeling this aid to the Afghan resistance. This historical relationship gave the United States a unique strategic advantage after 9/11. Pakistan possessed a combination of geography, intelligence networks, logistical routes, and institutional experience—assets that would have been extremely difficult to replace. Its cooperation could significantly facilitate U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Consequently, Islamabad chose the path it deemed relatively less damaging. Pakistan provided assistance through logistical support, access to airspace and facilities, intelligence cooperation, and other means, but did not directly join the war; in return for this strategic support, US sanctions were eased, economic aid increased, and Pakistan regained special diplomatic significance in Washington. This does not mean that the decision was without negative consequences. Pakistan itself became a major target of terrorism, resulting in the deaths of nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnels and economic losses of approximately $150 billion; Pakistan paid a very heavy price for this war. Furthermore, the repercussions of the strategic policies adopted during the 1980s and 1990s later manifested as problems for Pakistan—issues that perhaps could not have been fully foreseen in 2001. However, there is an important distinction here: criticizing the consequences of a decision and claiming that a different realistic course of action existed at the time are two separate things. A major irony of the Afghan war is that U.S. officials and analysts have repeatedly cited Pakistan as one of the primary reason for the failure to achieve American objectives in Afghanistan. When the question arises as to why the world’s most powerful military failed to achieve its objectives in Afghanistan, the answer is sometimes given in a single word: Pakistan. This should not necessarily be viewed as a badge of honor; rather, it reflects a complex relationship in which Washington needed Pakistan yet lacked trust in it, while simultaneously accusing certain Pakistani elements of supporting forces that were undermining

The most pitiable creature I know is not the beggar who asks for bread but the gentleman who must borrow a personality. He dresses in another man’s taste, speaks in another man’s phrases and mistakes imitation for refinement. He is everywhere respectable and nowhere original. Nations occasionally acquire the same unfortunate habit. Their politics become echoes, their ideals reflections, and their revolutions little more than borrowed costumes. There was a time when borrowing was the necessity of poverty. We borrowed machines because we had no factories, medicines because we had no laboratories, and books because we had no presses. Such borrowing was neither shameful nor unusual; indeed, civilisation itself advances through exchange. The Greeks borrowed from Egypt, the Arabs preserved and enlarged the inheritance of Greece, Europe rediscovered Aristotle through Muslim Spain, and Japan modernised by learning from the West without surrendering its soul. Borrowing knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. Borrowing identity is the beginning of decline. There is another form of borrowing that no customs official can intercept and no tariff can discourage. It enters silently through the imagination. A society begins by borrowing opinions, then aspirations, then indignation. Before long, it borrows its heroes, its villains, its vocabulary and, eventually, its revolutions. It ceases to ask, “What does our history require?” and instead asks, “Whose history should we imitate?” That, I fear, is the predicament into which much of Pakistan’s public discourse has drifted. During the past several weeks, social media has been flooded with admiration for the recent political resistance witnessed across the border in India. Video clips have travelled faster than thoughtful analysis. Slogans have crossed the Wagah frontier with greater ease than ideas. Among countless young Pakistanis one question has become almost fashionable, Why can’t Pakistan have a movement like this? The question is understandable. It is also profoundly revealing. Hidden within it is an assumption that our political future must resemble somebody else’s present; that history unfolds according to a universal script; that every nation matures by repeating the experience of another. It is an assumption born not of confidence but of intellectual dependency. The tragedy, therefore, is not that Pakistanis admire another people’s courage. Every decent society can appreciate courage wherever it appears. The tragedy is that many have become convinced that courage itself must now be imported. We seem increasingly unable to recognise our own political inheritance unless it first receives foreign approval. This habit is hardly confined to politics. It has become the defining condition of our intellectual life. We borrow theories from European universities before examining our own social realities. We borrow ideological fashions from America before asking whether they illuminate Pakistani society. We borrow debates from social media and mistake them for scholarship. We consume outrage manufactured elsewhere and wear it as though it were tailored for our own circumstances. We have become, in the deepest sense of the phrase, tenants in the house of our own imagination. The irony is painful. No civilisation lacking confidence in itself has ever become creative. Creation begins where imitation ends. Shakespeare borrowed stories but produced Hamlet. Iqbal studied Nietzsche and Bergson yet remained unmistakably Iqbal. Muhammad Ali Jinnah mastered the constitutional traditions of Britain but transformed them into a political movement rooted in the aspirations of Indian Muslims. Great minds borrow raw material; they do not borrow finished identities. The same principle governs nations. Civilisations borrow in order to create. Declining societies borrow in order to imitate. Perhaps nowhere is this confusion more visible than in our understanding of resistance. Resistance has become one of the most romantic words in modern political vocabulary. It evokes images of heroic crowds, defiant slogans, dramatic confrontations and triumphant victories. Social media, with its appetite for spectacle, has transformed resistance into a global performance. Every protest becomes a cinematic narrative; every confrontation seeks an audience; every slogan aspires to immortality through a hashtag. But history is not written in hashtags. Nor are nations transformed by theatrical moments alone. The anthropologist Leila Abu-Lughod offered an important warning nearly three decades ago in her influential essay The Romance of Resistance. She argued that scholars often romanticise resistance as though every act of opposition were inherently emancipatory. Such a view, she suggested, ignores the complex relationships of power, culture and history within which resistance acquires meaning. Acts of dissent cannot be detached from the societies that produce them. They are rooted in particular institutions, historical memories and cultural conditions. Her insight deserves careful attention today. To ask why Pakistan does not produce resistance identical to India’s is rather like asking why the Indus refuses to flow like the Ganges. Rivers obey their own geography. Nations obey their own history. Every meaningful political movement is shaped by its unique historical circumstances. The French Revolution emerged from fiscal collapse and aristocratic privilege. The American Revolution arose from disputes over representation and imperial authority. South Africa’s democratic transition was forged in the struggle against apartheid. None of these experiences can simply be photocopied for another society. History does not distribute identical examinations to different nations. Each country answers its own questions. Yet we continue searching for borrowed answers. Perhaps this is because borrowed revolutions are emotionally satisfying. They spare us the difficult labour of self-examination. It is always easier to admire another nation’s struggle than to confront the unfinished responsibilities of our own. Admiration demands nothing. Citizenship demands everything. That distinction has become blurred in contemporary Pakistan. Our public imagination has fallen in love with the romance of beginning anew. Every few years another movement captures our attention. We invest it with almost mythical expectations. We hope it will accomplish what institutions, constitutions and patient political reform have failed to achieve. We long for redemption through spectacle. But mature nations are not built upon permanent excitement. They are built upon permanent institutions. Hannah Arendt observed in On Revolution that the enduring achievement of successful revolutions lies not in the destruction of an old order but in the establishment of a

Stockholm Resilience Centre defines resilience as the capacity of a system to deal with change and continue to develop. System can be an individual, a forest, a city or an economy. In simple words, resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem to deal with disturbances and returns to its former state. When it comes to water resource management in Pakistan, unfortunately, we are not managing our water resource as sustainably as we should. WWF Pakistan points out a robust difference in water consumption between communities in Pakistan. Those who can afford uses 10 times more water than global average that stands at 10 gallons a day. On the contrary, poor lacks access to water in Pakistan. How sad it is that there exist two different water realities in Pakistan. On one hand, we have people that uses 100 gallons of water each day. On the other hand, we have masses that don’t even have access to water. We must put an end to existing water inequality in Pakistan. Water forms the backbone of our society and economy and without sustainable water management practices in place, we can neither have socially equitable society nor can we achieve sustainable economic growth for Pakistan. We must ensure that each person in Pakistan should have access to clean water regardless of geographical location and financial resources at disposal. If we really want to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Pakistan, we must end water inequality in Pakistan. An access to clean water is a basic human right and thus it should be available to all in the country. It is important to mention here that each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is strongly coupled with how we manage water as a natural resource. If we mange water wisely (with tomorrow in mind), we can easily achieve all 17 SDGs for Pakistan. However, an unsustainable water resource management will act as Achilles heel and prevent us in realizing Sustainable Development Goals. We certainly need a paradigm shift in managing water as a resource in Pakistan. Ministry of Planning, Development and Special Initiatives (Government of Pakistan) highlights that at the time of independence, per capita water availability in Pakistan was over 5000 cubic meters each year. Unfortunately, today, per capita water availability in Pakistan is sharply reduced to roughly 1000 cubic meters per person each year. In other words, each person in Pakistan now only has 1/5 of the water available every year, when compared to 1947 (at the time of independence). Public policy makers in Pakistan must tackle decreasing per capita water availability in Pakistan with utmost seriousness and do all it takes to tackle it in the most sustainable manner. Before we head on to solutions, we must understand the root causes of decreasing per capita water availability in Pakistan. According to Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), population in Pakistan has increased 7-fold since independence in 1947. Naturally, when we distribute the same amount of water we have each year on 7 times more population, the per capita water availability in Pakistan would then sharply reduce. ACIAR then stresses on the fact that irrigated agriculture in Pakistan consumes 95% of surface water supply in the country. Another report from Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) highlights that irrigated agriculture consumes 93% of the available water resource and acts as the single largest sector of economy employing 44% of the labour force, generating 60% of the foreign exchange earnings and produces roughly a quarter of Pakistan’s gross domestic product (GDP). The already spoken report from PCRWR then points out that Pakistan waste 60% of water from canals to farm gates. Do you know that per capita water storage ability of Pakistan is roughly 159 m3? On the contrary, the per-capita water storage ability of USA and Australia is over 5000m3, followed by China with a per-capita water storage ability of 2200m3, Egypt 2362 m3, Turkey 1402 m3 and Iran with 492m3. PCRWR further indicates that inadequate water storage ability has forced Pakistan to lose 120 BCM of water during floods of 2010, 2012 and 2014. If Pakistan had ample surface water storage infrastructure in place, it could had saved at least half of 120 BCM of surface water that could then be used to increase per-capita water availability in the country. The remaining 60 BCM of floodwater could restore Indus River Delta where many species are fighting for their survival due to reduced river flow. There is a dire need for Pakistan to build small, medium and large dams to store surface water. Doing so, will increase surface water availability on year-round basis, decrease flood related damage to agricultural lands and infrastructure, increase per-capita water availability, reduce reliance on underground water, recharge aquifers and mitigate their depletion. We have what it takes to build a series of small, medium and large dams in Pakistan to harvest floodwater during monsoon season. Do you know that 1 billion cubic meters of water has 1 trillion litres of water? Now imagine, if 50 litres of water cost 1 USD, the price tag of 1 billion cubic meters (or 1 trillion litres) of water would be 20 billion USD. Thus, a cumulative cost for 60 BCM of floodwater would roughly be USD 1200 billion. Now, if we would sharply reduce the already spoken figure to its one-tenth, the cost would still be a whooping USD 120 billion for 60 BCM of floodwater. We must understand that this is just the price of water. It is crucial to mention here that water forms the basis of all sorts of social and economic development, and we must learn to manage water sustainably to ensure a resilient Pakistan for all. We must invest heavily in constructing dams of all sizes to increase surface water availability and to enhance per-capita water in Pakistan. Here is an example. Do you know that Sweden has roughly 10,000 dams to manage surface water. It is quite simple, the