Justice Begins with the Well-being of Judges

By Latif Tunio Imagine two people standing outside a bakery. One has not eaten since yesterday. The other has already had breakfast but buys every loaf on the shelf because nobody else should have one. The first person is hungry. The second is greedy. That is the difference we often forget. Human needs are surprisingly small. We need food, shelter, safety, affection and dignity. Yet somewhere along the road to modern civilization, our desires stopped listening to our needs. We no longer ask, “Do I need this?” We ask, “Will people notice if I don’t have it?” Perhaps that is why we live in an age where skyscrapers grow taller while patience grows shorter. Greed is not new. Kings fought wars for gold centuries ago. Empires swallowed nations for spices, land and power. But today greed wears expensive perfume, carries a smartphone and speaks the language of success. It no longer hides in dark corners; sometimes it sits on television panels giving motivational speeches. A hundred years ago, a respected person was often remembered for honesty, wisdom or service to the community. Today, many people first ask, “What car does he drive?” or “How much is she worth?” Character has quietly been replaced by price tags.Social media has made this worse. Every morning millions of people wake up and immediately begin comparing their ordinary lives with someone else’s carefully edited highlights. One person posts a luxury vacation. Another uploads a new phone. Someone else announces another achievement. Nobody uploads sleepless nights, unpaid bills or family arguments. We compare our behind-the-scenes life with everyone else’s movie trailer.Then we wonder why we feel poor. The market has discovered something dangerous: making people dissatisfied is excellent for business. If people become content, who will buy the next upgrade Advertisements rarely sell products anymore. They sell insecurity. Frankly They whisper, “You are incomplete without this watch.” “You are unsuccessful without this car.” “You are unattractive without this cream.” Apparently even happiness now comes with monthly installments. Yet greed is not always born from vanity. Sometimes it grows out of fear. A father worried about rising school fees saves every rupee he can. A mother fears another economic crisis. A young graduate sees unemployment everywhere and begins believing that only endless money can guarantee safety. Fear slowly changes saving into hoarding, and caution into obsession. There is an old saying often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “The Earth provides enough for everyone’s need, but not everyone’s greed.” The tragedy is that many people no longer know where need ends and greed begins. Another reason is that we have quietly lost the art of contentment. Previous generations owned fewer things but often worried less about owning more. Today many people possess wardrobes full of clothes while insisting they have “nothing to wear.” We buy bigger houses only to spend less time inside them. We own faster internet but have slower conversations. Modern life keeps promising that the next purchase will finally complete us. It never does. Greed also flourishes where justice is weak. When honest people struggle while corrupt people become celebrities, society learns a dangerous lesson. Bribes become “connections.” Fraud becomes “smartness.” Tax evasion becomes “good business.” Before long, honesty begins looking like a financial disability. The message becomes painfully simple: if cheating pays and integrity suffers, why remain honest? This is how corruption stops being an individual crime and becomes a social culture. The damage reaches far beyond bank accounts. Families break apart over inheritance before the funeral flowers have even dried. Lifelong friendships disappear over business deals. Brothers become strangers because land suddenly becomes more valuable than blood. Perhaps the saddest part is that greedy people rarely enjoy what they collect. They spend years protecting possessions they never truly have time to use. They own everything except peace. Nature also pays the bill. Forests disappear because cutting trees is profitable today, even if floods arrive tomorrow. Rivers become sewers because treating waste reduces corporate profits. Mountains are blasted apart, oceans filled with plastic and clean air sold back to us in expensive machines. Humanity has become astonishingly efficient at converting tomorrow’s disasters into today’s profits. Can greed be reduced? Not by preaching alone. Children should learn that success includes honesty, kindness and responsibility—not only salaries. Schools should celebrate integrity as loudly as achievement. Families should teach gratitude before ambition. We also need digital wisdom: learning that a perfect life on a screen is often nothing more than excellent lighting and careful editing. Governments have responsibilities too. Laws must punish corruption without asking whether the offender is rich, famous or politically connected. Justice loses its meaning when it becomes negotiable. Above all, we need to rediscover contentment—not laziness, but the wisdom of knowing when enough is truly enough. A society does not become civilized because it builds taller buildings or produces richer billionaires. It becomes civilized when people can trust one another, when honesty is rewarded instead of mocked, and when success does not require sacrificing conscience. The greatest poverty in the twenty-first century may not be empty pockets. It may be full wallets attached to empty hearts. The writer is a Social activist. He can be reached at tunio.latif786@gmail.com

The geopolitical partition of the Indian subcontinent in the mid-twentieth century and the subsequent emergence of two sovereign nation-states remain among the most complex and defining chapters in modern global history. Within constitutional studies, postcolonial scholarship, and international affairs, this monumental shift has often been viewed through overly reductive lenses—frequently chalked up to imperial haste, nationalist fervor, or entrenched religious polarization. Yet, evaluated through a critical, detached twenty-first-century historical paradigm, a far more nuanced reality emerges: the creation of Pakistan was neither the product of a singular conspiracy nor a sudden historical accident. Rather, it represented a profound tripartite structural crisis triggered by Britain’s post-war imperial retreat, the Indian National Congress’s persistent anxiety over central authority, and the All-India Muslim League’s long-standing constitutional struggle to secure the political rights, economic safeguards, and existence of the subcontinent’s Muslim minority. To comprehend the foundational tier of this historical watershed, one must first analyze the global political economy and British colonial strategy of the 1940s. The devastation of the Second World War eroded the financial, administrative, and military underpinnings of the British Empire. British India—once celebrated as the crown jewel of the realm—had transmuted into an unsustainable administrative burden for Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government in London. Official imperial correspondence compiled in The Transfer of Power 1942–47 exposes an unmistakable truth: London’s primary objective was no longer to establish an equitable political settlement in South Asia, but rather to execute a swift, low-cost exit that mitigated further economic and military liability. This imperial burnout precipitated Lord Mountbatten’s rushed exit strategy, which abruptly advanced the timeline for the transfer of power from June 1948 to August 1947. The human and spatial catastrophe that followed was exacerbated by the Boundary Commission led by Sir Cyril Radcliffe—a man with no prior familiarity with the subcontinent’s intricate demographic and cultural fabric, tasked with carving borders across maps in a matter of weeks. The chaotic fallout of the Radcliffe Award, the controversial inclusion of Muslim-majority tehsils like Gurdaspur into India, the bloody bifurcation of Punjab and Bengal, and the largest forced migration in human history were ultimately the catastrophic human costs paid by millions of South Asians for a retreating empire’s hasty flight. The second dimension of this tripartite framework involves the political, ideological, and constitutional stance of the Indian National Congress—a position frequently mischaracterized in one-sided narratives as sheer personal hubris or partisan bias. A rigorous, objective historical analysis of the Congress leadership, particularly figures like Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, reveals that their overriding strategic fear was the “Balkanization” of the subcontinent into scores of autonomous, warring princely states. The Congress maintained that governing a vast, culturally diverse land mass under a weak central power alongside sprawling princely domains was fundamentally unviable. They advocated for a highly centralized state capable of driving industrialization, economic cohesion, and geopolitical stability. Consequently, Congress consistently resisted flexible federal structures that granted extensive provincial autonomy, fearing that a weak central government would inevitably lead to the fragmentation of India’s geographical and political integrity. However, the third and arguably most crucial ideological and legal dimension was the constitutional resistance led by the All-India Muslim League under Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah—a struggle born out of the inherent limitations of majoritarian, “Westminster-style” numerical democracy. In culturally homogenous Western societies, the principle of “one person, one vote” forms the bedrock of democratic governance. Yet in the deeply stratified, multi-religious reality of the subcontinent, strict numerical majoritarianism effectively condemned a twenty-five percent Muslim minority to permanent political subordination under a seventy-five percent Hindu majority. For the Muslim population, this contest was never merely about securing a share of administrative power; it was a fundamental fight for legislative self-determination, economic survival, and cultural preservation. A close reading of the subcontinent’s constitutional trajectory demonstrates that the demand for Pakistan did not originate as a call for immediate territorial separation. From the Simla Deputation of 1906 and the constitutional reforms of 1909 to the Lucknow Pact of 1916, Jinnah’s Fourteen Points of 1929, and the Government of India Act of 1935, the primary objective of Muslim leadership was to secure provincial autonomy, separate electorates, and robust constitutional safeguards within a unified Indian federation. As the eminent Cambridge historian Ayesha Jalal highlighted in The Sole Spokesman, the demand for Pakistan functioned for a long time as a sophisticated strategic bargaining chip aimed at securing equal constitutional weight at the center, ensuring minority rights could not be overridden by sheer majoritarian dominance. The pivotal turning point occurred following the 1937 provincial elections. When the Indian National Congress formed unilateral governments across most of British India while sidelining minority representation, its twenty-month tenure transformed the Muslim League’s theoretical anxieties into stark political reality. The final, most promising opportunity for a united, decentralized India was the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946. It proposed grouping British Indian provinces into three autonomous tiers, restricting the federal center strictly to defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Demonstrating extraordinary political foresight and statesmanship, Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan despite heavy internal dissent, striving to preserve the geographic unity of the subcontinent while securing constitutional autonomy for Muslims. This fragile compromise collapsed in July 1946 during a press conference in Bombay, where Jawaharlal Nehru declared that Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly “unfettered by agreements” and free to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan. In his seminal work Partition of India: Legend and Reality, renowned Indian jurist and constitutional historian H. M. Seervai meticulously documented how Congress’s rigid insistence on hyper-centralization and rejection of a loose federation torpedoed the Cabinet Mission Plan. At that crucial juncture, the demand for a separate, sovereign state ceased to be an idealistic campaign; it became the sole viable, logical pathway to guarantee political equality, dignity, and constitutional security for millions of Muslims. Underpinning this prolonged political contest was an essential socio-economic reality often overlooked in conventional historiography. In British India, commercial networks, civil administration, and industrial capital were predominantly concentrated within the Hindu middle class, leaving the Muslim agrarian class, tenant

“By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail”—Benjamin Franklin Every monsoon, Lahore receives heavy rainfall. Every monsoon, the city appears surprised. Roads become rivers, underpasses become lakes, vehicles remain stranded for hours, businesses suspend operations, electricity fails in several localities and thousands of citizens find themselves trapped in their homes. Public officials then appear before cameras to assure the public that “all machinery has been mobilised” and “field staff are working round the clock”. The question, however, is not whether officials worked after the city was submerged. The real question is why a city that has witnessed identical scenes for decades still lacks the institutional capacity to manage a predictable annual event. Rain is not the problem. It is governance. The latest spell of heavy rainfall has once again exposed the widening gap between Lahore’s physical expansion and its institutional preparedness. It has demonstrated that despite billions of rupees spent on roads, flyovers, underpasses, signal-free corridors and housing developments, the city’s drainage infrastructure has remained dangerously inadequate. Nature merely revealed what administrative complacency had concealed. Lahore today is managed by a bewildering network of public institutions—the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency (TEPA), Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA), Metropolitan Corporation Lahore, district administration, Punjab Housing and Town Planning Agency, Parks and Horticulture Authority and several cantonment boards. Each possesses defined statutory functions, separate budgets, independent administrative structures and overlapping jurisdictions. Yet when rain falls, responsibility becomes everyone’s—and therefore no one’s. The ordinary citizen neither understands nor cares which agency is legally responsible for a flooded road, a blocked drain or an inundated underpass. Citizens judge governments by outcomes, not organisational charts. If roads remain submerged for hours, traffic collapses across the city and commercial activity comes to a standstill, institutional fragmentation cannot become an excuse for collective failure. LDA deserves particular scrutiny because it has shaped Lahore’s urban landscape over the past several decades. Successive development plans have emphasised visible infrastructure and horizontal urban expansion. New housing societies continue to receive approvals while commercial activity spreads rapidly beyond the city’s traditional limits. However, sustainable urban development involves much more than constructing roads and approving layouts. It requires integrated planning for drainage, groundwater recharge, storm-water management, environmental protection and climate resilience. These objectives have too often been subordinated to short-term development priorities. The consequences are now visible across Lahore. Natural water channels have disappeared under concrete. Green areas have steadily declined. Impervious surfaces have multiplied. Urban sprawl has accelerated. Rainwater that once infiltrated open land now accumulates almost instantly on concrete roads and paved surfaces, overwhelming drainage systems that were designed for a much smaller city. The engineering challenge has fundamentally changed but not institutional thinking. TEPA has undoubtedly transformed Lahore’s transport infrastructure through extensive investment in roads, bridges and underpasses. Yet transport engineering cannot be separated from storm-water engineering. Every major road project should answer a simple question before construction begins: Where will the rainwater go? Unfortunately, repeated flooding of important roads and underpasses suggests that drainage considerations have often received less attention than traffic movement. Infrastructure cannot be described as successful merely because vehicles move efficiently during dry weather. Infrastructure succeeds only when it continues functioning under adverse conditions. Modern cities are designed not for ideal weather but for extreme weather. That is precisely where Lahore repeatedly fails. WASA occupies the frontline whenever urban flooding occurs. Its officers and field staff frequently work under extraordinarily difficult circumstances and deserve recognition for their commitment. Yet institutional performance cannot be evaluated solely by emergency response. Pumping millions of gallons of water after roads have flooded does not represent successful urban management. It merely demonstrates that preventive systems were insufficient. Effective drainage begins months before the monsoon through systematic desilting of drains, cleaning of disposal stations, maintenance of pumping equipment, removal of encroachments on natural waterways and continuous monitoring of vulnerable locations. Emergency pumping should remain the exception. In Lahore, it has become the annual strategy. The larger issue extends beyond engineering. It concerns public administration itself. Urban governance in Lahore suffers from fragmentation without coordination. One agency constructs roads. Another manages drainage. A third approves housing schemes. A fourth regulates utilities. A fifth removes encroachments. Each agency performs its own function with limited institutional integration. The result is predictable. Roads are constructed without adequate drainage capacity. Housing schemes are approved without corresponding investment in trunk infrastructure. Natural drainage channels disappear beneath commercial development. Freshly constructed roads are repeatedly excavated by utility agencies. Responsibility becomes divided while accountability disappears. Climate change has unquestionably intensified rainfall patterns across South Asia. Extreme precipitation events are becoming more frequent. However, climate change cannot become an administrative defence. If rainfall patterns have changed, engineering standards must also change. If cities are expanding, drainage systems must expand accordingly. If scientific forecasts predict greater climate volatility, development planning must incorporate those projections rather than relying upon obsolete assumptions. Unfortunately, Lahore continues to respond to twenty-first-century climate realities with twentieth-century infrastructure. The economic costs of this governance failure are substantial. Businesses lose valuable operating hours. Industrial production is disrupted. Supply chains are interrupted. Thousands of daily wage earners lose income. Motor vehicles suffer avoidable damage. Insurance costs increase. Property values decline in repeatedly flooded neighbourhoods. Public health deteriorates as stagnant water increases the risk of waterborne diseases. Collectively, these recurring economic losses almost certainly exceed the annual cost of maintaining a modern storm-water management system raising an uncomfortable question. If billions of rupees can be allocated annually for visible infrastructure projects, why does preventive maintenance remain persistently underfunded? Public finance should not reward ribbon-cutting ceremonies while neglecting maintenance. Maintenance rarely attracts political attention but its absence always attracts public suffering. The constitutional dimension is equally significant. Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, a concept repeatedly interpreted by superior courts to include living with dignity, safety and a healthy environment. Article 14 protects human dignity, while Article 38 obliges the State to promote the social and economic well-being of the people.

The intellectual discourse initiated by Sufi philosophers was inclusive of all religions and negated mullahism. Baba Farid is said to have been persecuted by Pakpattan’s qazi and the ruler of the city for listening to music and dancing in the mosque. Guru Nanak condemned the ritualism of mullahs and the pundits—Our distorted intellectual discourse, Dawn, September 9, 2011  Our discussion of Waris Shah ended with Erich Fromm’s distinction between having and being. Heer’s family sought to have honour, status, alliances and authority over a daughter; Heer and Ranjha sought a relationship grounded in recognition rather than possession. Their tragedy arose because a possessive social order could not tolerate human beings who refused to behave as property. To take that argument further, we must now travel backwards nearly five centuries before Waris Shah, to the beginnings of the surviving Punjabi poetic tradition and to Baba Farid (Hazrat Fariduddin Ganjshaka). Najm Hosain Syed places Farid at the opening of that tradition. What distinguishes his dohras, Najm writes, is an “austerity of tone”. Their setting is not an imaginary spiritual landscape but the “daily experience of common man”: fields, bread, dust, ageing bodies, hunger, labour and death. That austerity is precisely why Farid speaks so forcefully to an age obsessed with accumulation. Fromm, writing in To Have or To Be?, contrasted two orientations towards existence. The having mode seeks security through possession, accumulation and control; the being mode locates fulfilment in living, loving, sharing and becoming. Farid inhabited an entirely different intellectual and spiritual universe, and it would be anachronistic to turn him into a medieval Fromm. The convergence lies elsewhere. Both question the assumption that what we possess tells us what we are. Farid begins with the most democratic substance imaginable: dust. Dust Shahmukhi Roman Punjabi Literary English translation فریدہ خاکُ ن نندیئ خاکو جیڈُ ن کوئِ جیودیاں پیراں تلے مویاں اپرِ ہوئِ Farida khaak na nindiye, khaako jed na koi Jeevandeyan pairan talle, moyan upar hoi Farid, do not despise the dust; nothing stands above it. In life it lies beneath our feet; in death it lies above us.   The surviving Shahmukhi text preserves the couplet in this form. Few lines dismantle hierarchy more economically. The earth beneath the rich man’s shoe and the poor labourer’s bare foot is the same earth that eventually covers both. Rank, office, lineage, property and beauty exist for a moment between two encounters with dust. Farid is not preaching passivity before injustice. His image destroys the metaphysical arrogance on which inequality depends. Human beings may create distinctions of caste, wealth and status, but mortality refuses to recognise them. The person who imagines himself elevated above another discovers that both occupy the same final ground. This is Farid’s first challenge to the mode of having. We spend our lives converting temporary control into imagined permanence: my land, my wealth, my title, my family name, my influence. Dust reveals the grammatical error. We possess these things temporarily; they do not belong to the essential self. Farid’s poetry becomes even more striking when it turns from mortality to material inequality. Flour for Some, Not Even Salt for Others Shahmukhi Roman Punjabi Literary English translation فریدہ اکناّ آٹا اگلا اکناّ ناہی لونُ اگے گئے سننجاپسنِ چوٹاں کھا سی کؤنُ Farida ikna aata agla, ikna nahi loon Agge gaye sanjhaapsan, chotan khaasi kaun Farid, some have flour in abundance; others do not even have salt. Beyond this life it will become known who must answer for the blows. The text occurs among the saloks attributed to Farid. This is not abstract mysticism. It is an observation about distribution. One household possesses abundance; another lacks even the simplest accompaniment to bread. Farid does not construct an economic theory from the disparity, but neither does he treat it as morally neutral. The second line introduces accountability. Unequal possession cannot be separated from the question of how human beings acquired, used and withheld what passed through their hands. This is an important corrective to a frequent misuse of spirituality. Poverty should never be romanticised simply because a saint practiced austerity. There is a profound difference between voluntary simplicity and involuntary deprivation. Farid could choose restraint as spiritual discipline; the person without salt may have no choice at all. His famous imagery of coarse bread makes the distinction clearer: فریدہ روٹی میری کاٹھ کی، لاونُ میری بھکھ His bread is hard and hunger itself becomes its relish. In the following couplet, he advises eating simple food and drinking cool water without tormenting oneself by staring enviously at another person’s richer meal. The ethical target is excess desire, not nourishment. A society in which some cannot meet basic needs while others define themselves through conspicuous consumption cannot use Farid to sanctify deprivation. His poetry asks the possessor to examine himself before asking the deprived to accept their condition. Here the relationship with Fromm becomes especially productive. The having mode is not merely ownership of useful things. Human life requires food, shelter, tools and security. The pathology begins when possession becomes identity—when having more means believing oneself to be more. Farid’s answer is sabar: steadfastness, restraint, patience and sufficiency. His surviving corpus repeatedly returns to simplicity, humility and control of appetite. In contemporary political economy, however, restraint cannot be demanded only from those who possess least. An ethic worthy of Farid must speak first to those with the greatest capacity to accumulate, consume and command. His social imagination reaches its deepest point when personal suffering becomes recognition of universal suffering. The Fire in Every House Shahmukhi Roman Punjabi Literary English translation فریدہ میں جانیا دکھ مجھ کوُ دکھ سبائے جگِ اُچے چڑھِ کے دیکھیا تاں گھرِ گھرِ ایہا اگِ Farida main jaania dukh mujh ko, dukh sabhaai jag Uchche charh ke dekhia, taan ghar ghar eha ag Farid, I thought suffering belonged to me alone; I climbed higher and saw the same fire burning in every home. The couplet is preserved in the Farid saloks, and one modern scholarly discussion sees precisely this capacity to absorb the suffering of

One question stayed with me long after I attended a workshop under the project titled ‘Digital Trust and Free Expression in the Era of AI’, organized by the Department of Media and Development Communication, University of the Punjab with the support of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan in partnership with the Pakistan-U.S. Alumni Network, was, ‘How will we preserve digital trust and free expression in the age of AI’? As AI becomes an integral part of digital journalism, the question is no longer whether it should be used, and more importantly who should be held responsible when things go wrong. Artificial Intelligence has definitely proven to be a powerful tool for journalists. It can summarize long reports, translate content into multiple languages, follow breaking news, analyze vast quantities of data and even write complete news reports in seconds. All of these capabilities have revolutionized newsroom processes and enabled journalists to process information more efficiently than ever before. But efficiency is not the only measure of ethical journalism. Journalism isn’t about being fast, it’s about informing the public accurately, fairly and responsibly. One of the most valuable lessons I learned from the workshop was that AI does not understand information; it predicts the most likely response based on patterns in the data it has learned from. This distinction is important because when reliable information is unavailable at the time, AI generates responses that seem convincing but inaccurate, but are wrong, which is often referred to as AI hallucination. What’s most concerning is that the AI generated mistakes can appear convincing enough for people to accept them as true. This poses an ethical question: Who should be held responsible if AI-generated news contains misleading information? The burden can’t be placed entirely on the algorithm. AI has no moral judgement or legal accountability. It cannot distinguish between public interest and public harm and is not aware of the social consequences of publishing inaccurate information. This means that the responsibility rests with those who decide to employ these technologies: journalists, editors, newsroom leaders, and media organizations. While AI can help create content, it cannot replace responsibility. This is where ethics become more important than technological advancements. Checking information should not take a back seat to the ‘Publish first’ mentality. With all of the digital platforms that exist today, misinformation can spread from continent to continent within minutes and corrections often fail to reach the same audience. Each unverified headline altered photo or AI-generated mistake can damage the public’s trust, both in a specific news organization and in journalism.   The discussions also reinforced the importance of Media and Information Literacy (MIL). Verification is not only the responsibility of journalists, but also something that is necessary for every digital citizen. Learning how to use reverse image search, source verification techniques, and critical evaluation of online information is no longer an option, it’s essential for protecting ourselves from deception. As AI-generated content becomes increasingly sophisticated, it is essential to verify information before accepting it as true. AI will continue to evolve and so will digital journalism. The challenge is not innovation itself but using it responsibly. Trust is not something algorithms can build, it is something that can be gained only through transparency, accountability and a steadfast dedication to truth. While adopting new technologies to do journalism, let’s not forget that the tools should enhance journalism’s values, not shape journalism. AI may help write the news, but only humans can uphold the ethics behind it. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan or USEFP.

In a world driven by technology, only change is permanent. Change we must, but how? Transition from one system to another is perhaps the biggest challenge that we have not been able to cope with. Half-baked solutions with underage players cannot deliver. Reminds me of Einstein’s famous quote: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Steve Jobs, one of the greatest technologists of the 21st century, went even further by saying: “Either lead or get out of the way.” A few years back I was doing some research on universities and their impact on setting the course of nations. Syed Ahmed Khan’s Aligarh Muslim University stood out. It produced the Change Managers who not only led the freedom movement but also had the capacity to sustain it. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (IRP) desperately needs such individuals who can understand and then manage the needful. In the year 1875 he founded the MAO College (Mohammadian Anglo Oriental College) which later grew into a university in the year 1920. He passed away in 1898 but the institution grew. Later on, Allama Iqbal led the movement, and finally it was Muhammad Ali Jinnah who succeeded in carving a new homeland in August 1947 for the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to lay the foundations of the new state, but he did leave clear guidelines for the inherited establishment to follow (Armed Forces, Bureaucracy). After taking over in October 1999, Pervez Musharraf created a think tank called the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB). Headed by Lt. Gen. Tanvir Naqvi, it was located in the Chief Executive (CE) secretariat. The task was to design and execute political and administrative reforms in the country. I was invited to give my input. Naqvi Sb was very confident about delivering meaningful change. His main focus was on devolution of power. As a student of management, I asked him a simple question: “Who will implement his plan?” Bureaucracy, of course, was his quick reply. He did not have an answer to my second concern: “Why will they implement a plan which reduces their power?” He then decided to get rid of me by saying if I wanted to discuss implementation details, I should go to the third floor to the CE’s office. Finally, he stepped down and was replaced by a young novice who lacked the experience and clout to deliver meaningful change. Then there was another initiative called the National Commission for Human Development (NCHD), led by a pediatrician from a small town in Oregon. The worthy Dr assured the CE that he would manage funds from abroad while the local expenses were to be provided by the Government of Pakistan (GOP). Various centers were established across the country and staff recruited. While GOP provided the internal resources, the external help never came despite fundraising efforts abroad. The CE was convinced that the two sectors were well covered, but they were not. Finally, NCHD became a liability and was shut down and the staff laid off. During my term as Chairman, Pakistan Science Foundation (PSF), I lobbied for technocrats to head technical ministries, which was not well received by the powers that be. Commercialization and application of research is the biggest challenge faced by the R&D sector of the country. When I was denied an extension after the completion of my term, I paid a farewell visit to the Secretary MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology). It was a friendly meeting; the Secretary appreciated my work but complained that I did not follow his guidelines. While leaving, he pointed at the board where the names of his predecessors were written. I still remember his words: “Only our names make it here.” He did not like my spontaneous response: “Time will tell,” and it did. My lobbying prevailed; a retired Chairman of PAEC (Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission) replaced him. Though he had no commercial background, I decided to guide and support him. He recommended major investments in creating public sector entities like HMC III, run by PAEC, for meeting their equipment needs. At best, only pilot plants were viable for transfer of technology from laboratory to industry. He was unable to get the funds. As such, his term ended with no major breakthrough, and business as usual continued. Pakistan has a federal structure of governance. Federating units are diverse with differing needs. I am in favor of devolution, but the task on hand is not simple. The forces of status quo are too entrenched. Change Managers are needed at all levels. Complexities have to be understood and managed. There has to be consensus on the road map. Islamabad has an archive of failed plans. The same mistakes should not be repeated again. The first challenge is to find qualified individuals with solid re-engineering experience to lead the crusade. Einstein and Jobs were two brilliant brains of their times; we must value their outlook to move forward and avoid chaos and confusion. Oversimplification of the task at hand must be avoided.