Dad’s fake Ultrasound trick goes viral

By Dr. Naveeda Katper Human beings live in a world of countless needs and wants, but the resources available to meet those needs are limited. Food, shelter, education, health and a sense of belonging are among the basic requirements of life. Because resources are scarce, individuals, organizations and governments have to set priorities, make choices and use available resources wisely. Resources can broadly be divided into natural and human-made resources. Natural resources such as land, water, forests, minerals and energy come from nature. Human-made resources, including machines, buildings, technology and infrastructure, are developed by people using natural resources. Natural resources can be depleted, while human-made resources can depreciate through use and time. Human beings, however, are different from other resources. A person is not simply a consumer of resources. With education, training, health and appropriate opportunities, a person can develop knowledge and skills and become an important form of human capital. This is why human capital is often considered more valuable than other resources. Human beings discover, develop and manage resources. They create technology, improve production, solve problems and generate new ideas. Among the traditional factors of production—land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship—human effort remains central because it activates and combines the others. Education and skills are therefore essential for economic and social development. A person without education or employable skills may have limited opportunities to earn a stable income. A skilled person, on the other hand, can use available resources productively and create value for both themselves and society. Skills can take different forms. Hard skills include technical and professional abilities. Soft skills include communication, teamwork, discipline and problem-solving. Transferable skills can be applied across different occupations and workplaces. All of these can improve a person’s ability to participate productively in the economy. Developed economies provide useful examples of how investment in people can contribute to national development. Countries such as Finland, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Japan and South Korea have invested substantially in education, vocational training, technology and workforce development. Their experience shows that economic progress is not based only on natural resources or physical infrastructure. The knowledge, skills and productivity of people are equally important. Skills development should begin early in life. Children should not be taught only to memorise information. They should also be encouraged to ask questions, solve problems, make things, experiment and learn from mistakes. An education system that allows children to try, fail and try again can help develop confidence, creativity and practical thinking. Schools, vocational institutions and workplaces all have a role in this process. Young people need opportunities to connect education with practical skills. They should be able to understand how knowledge can be applied to real problems and employment opportunities. The challenge is particularly serious in developing and least-developed countries, where many people have limited access to quality education, technical training and decent employment. Weak educational systems, inadequate infrastructure and limited opportunities for formal employment can prevent large sections of the population from developing their full potential. The problem is not simply unemployment. It is also the gap between what people know and what the economy needs. Many young people complete some level of education but do not acquire the practical or technical skills required by employers. At the same time, businesses often struggle to find workers with the right skills. Pakistan faces a similar challenge. The country has a large and relatively young population, which can become an important economic advantage if the right investments are made. But population size alone does not create economic growth. A large population becomes an asset when people are healthy, educated, skilled and productively employed. The World Bank’s Human Capital Index has repeatedly highlighted the importance of investments in education, health and skills for Pakistan’s long-term economic prospects. Pakistan’s human-capital performance remains below that of many countries that have made stronger and more sustained investments in these areas. Improving the quality of education, expanding vocational training and increasing opportunities for productive employment should therefore be treated as national priorities. Formal education, however, should not be considered the only route to developing human capital. Many adults who did not receive adequate schooling can still acquire useful skills through vocational and technical training. Short courses in areas such as construction, agriculture, livestock, tailoring, information technology, electrical work, plumbing, mechanics, hospitality and other trades can provide people with opportunities to earn a livelihood. Such training should not remain concentrated in major cities. Local training centres and mobile skill programmes can take practical education to towns and villages. Community-level training can help women, young people and adults who cannot easily access conventional educational institutions. Pakistan can also benefit from stronger links between education and the labour market. Training programmes should be designed after identifying the skills actually demanded by local and national economies. Employers, educational institutions and government departments should work together to ensure that training leads to real opportunities rather than certificates alone. The private sector also has an important role. Businesses can provide apprenticeships, internships and on-the-job training. Young people can gain valuable experience when they are given opportunities to learn directly in workplaces. Human capital development should also include lifelong learning. Technology and the nature of work are changing rapidly. Skills that are valuable today may become less relevant tomorrow. Workers therefore need opportunities to update their knowledge and acquire new skills throughout their careers. The central lesson is simple: people should not be viewed merely as consumers of a country’s resources. With proper investment, they become producers, innovators, entrepreneurs, teachers, technicians, researchers and problem-solvers. They create value from resources that might otherwise remain underused. For Pakistan, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. The country’s young population can become a powerful economic resource if it receives quality education, healthcare, practical skills and meaningful employment opportunities. But if these needs are ignored, population growth can increase pressure on already limited resources. Human capital is therefore not a secondary concern. It is one of the foundations of sustainable development. Roads, buildings, machines, technology and natural

By Syed Tahir Rashdi  The writer is a Shahdadpur-based contributing columnist, book reviewer, and climate change activist. He holds a BS degree in Pakistan Studies from University of Sindh Pakistan’s debate over new provinces has returned with familiar demands: South Punjab, Bahawalpur, Hazara, Karachi and, periodically, proposals for a more extensive reorganisation of the federation. There are credible arguments behind some of these demands. Population growth, administrative distance, uneven development and the persistence of regional identities have altered the circumstances in which Pakistan’s present provincial arrangement was conceived. Yet the debate tends to proceed from an assumption that deserves greater scrutiny: that creating smaller provinces will, in itself, improve governance. It may. But it may also not. The distinction is important because Pakistan’s principal difficulty has never been simply the size of its administrative units. It has been the weakness, discontinuity and politicisation of the institutions through which those units are governed. This does not make the case for new provinces illegitimate. It does, however, suggest that provincial restructuring should be considered as one component of administrative reform rather than as a substitute for it. Pakistan’s provincial boundaries have never been immutable. The One Unit scheme of 1955 consolidated the western wing into a single province, partly to establish parity between the two wings of the country. It was abolished in 1970, restoring the provinces. The episode remains relevant because it demonstrated the limits of administrative engineering. A territorial arrangement can be imposed constitutionally, but its durability ultimately depends upon political legitimacy. The present debate is considerably more complex. The demand for a South Punjab province contains at least three distinct strands: the historical claim associated with Bahawalpur, the linguistic and cultural politics of Saraiki identity, and the administrative argument that the southern districts have remained distant from the provincial centre in Lahore. There is also the persistent claim of regional economic neglect. These strands should not be conflated. Similarly, the Hazara demand has a strong identity component, while the Karachi question is inseparable from the city’s unusual demographic, economic and political history and the longstanding contest over authority between urban local institutions and the provincial government. The differences matter because different problems require different institutional responses. The Constitution does not make the creation of a new province a matter of political declaration. Article 239 provides a demanding procedure for constitutional amendment, including the approval of the concerned provincial assembly where provincial boundaries are affected. That requirement is not an accidental obstacle. It reflects the logic of federalism: a federation cannot permit the territorial boundaries of one constituent unit to be altered without giving that unit a decisive constitutional voice. The experience of the parliamentary commission on new provinces in 2012 illustrated the complexity of the exercise. Questions of boundaries, resources, representation, administrative structures and constitutional amendments quickly became inseparable from the political question of who would gain or lose influence. That is why the debate deserves to be insulated, as far as possible, from electoral expediency. There is, however, a more fundamental issue that receives considerably less attention. Article 140-A of the Constitution requires provincial governments to establish local government systems and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives. This provision goes to the heart of the governance question. A citizen’s encounter with government is rarely with the federal government or even with a provincial assembly. It is with the school, hospital, police station, municipal authority, land office, sanitation service or local administration. Yet local governments in Pakistan have rarely acquired the institutional continuity, fiscal autonomy and political authority envisaged by the Constitution. The result is an unusual form of devolution. The 18th Amendment substantially strengthened the provinces by transferring functions and resources from the federation, but the transfer of authority has often stopped at the provincial level. Islamabad became less dominant. The provinces became stronger. The citizen did not necessarily become more powerful. This is perhaps the most important issue in the new-provinces debate. If a region is suffering because decisions are too distant from its population, the first question should be whether existing institutions can be decentralised before an entirely new tier of government is created. Comparative experience does not provide a universal answer, but it does offer useful cautions. Indonesia’s post-Suharto decentralisation transferred extensive responsibilities to subnational governments. The reform was necessary after decades of centralised rule, but decentralisation itself did not guarantee effective or accountable government. Subsequent reforms had to focus on institutional capacity, fiscal management and local accountability. Nigeria provides another caution. The creation of additional states was partly intended to improve political representation and accommodate regional interests. Yet the country continues to face substantial governance and institutional-capacity problems across its states. The lesson from both cases is not that administrative restructuring is futile. It is that territorial fragmentation and institutional development are different processes. South Africa offers a somewhat different model. Its Constitution explicitly recognises local government as a sphere of government and assigns municipalities constitutional responsibilities relating to democratic participation and service delivery. The significance lies less in the number of provinces than in the distribution of authority among the different levels of government. Switzerland’s federal tradition similarly rests on substantial cantonal and communal autonomy. Its relevance to Pakistan is not institutional imitation but a principle: government functions should be located at the level at which they can be performed most effectively, while higher levels retain responsibilities that require wider coordination. There is therefore no universally correct number of provinces. The appropriate administrative scale depends upon geography, population, fiscal capacity, the nature of the public service and, above all, institutional competence. Pakistan’s governance difficulties are familiar enough to require little elaboration: weak rule of law, politicisation of public institutions, patronage, corruption, uneven accountability, administrative discontinuity and the recurrent weakening of local government. None of these problems disappears when a provincial boundary is moved. A new province may shorten the administrative distance between a region and its provincial capital. It does not automatically make the police independent,