Young People Are Not the Future, They Are the Pres…

Pakistan’s electricity sector is witnessing a quiet revolution. Between January 2024 and June 2026, the country imported more than 6 GWh of lithium-ion batteries, with monthly imports rising to 652 MWh in April 2026, according to the latest commentary by the Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (PRIME). The data confirms what many consumers already know: battery storage is rapidly becoming an integral component of Pakistan’s emerging distributed energy system. Against this backdrop, the proposal reportedly advanced by the Adviser to the Power Division, Syed Faizan Ali, to introduce Time-of-Use (ToU) net billing with an additional compensation of Rs18–22 per kWh for electricity discharged between 5 pm and 10 pm deserves serious attention. It represents one of the first attempts by policymakers to recognise battery storage as an active participant in the electricity market rather than merely a backup power source. PRIME has welcomed this initiative in its recent Prime Comment #44, “Turning Pakistan’s Battery Boom into a Grid Asset”, arguing that battery storage can transform millions of privately owned batteries into valuable grid resources capable of reducing evening peak demand and improving overall system efficiency. The think tank also reminds readers that in its April 2026 Prime Plus edition, PRIME  had advocated accelerated investment in Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) as part of Pakistan’s response to regional geopolitical tensions and growing concerns over energy security. The proposal is intellectually attractive. It recognises a simple economic truth: electricity stored during periods of abundant solar generation becomes considerably more valuable when discharged during the evening peak. Properly designed price signals can therefore encourage consumers to invest in storage while simultaneously reducing pressure on the national grid. The underlying economics are difficult to dispute. The policy conclusions, however, deserve far closer scrutiny. Pakistan’s electricity crisis has never been merely a shortage of technology. It has always been a crisis of institutions. For decades, governments have attempted to resolve structural failures through new incentives while leaving untouched the governance failures that created those problems in the first place. Capacity payments, guaranteed returns, fuel subsidies, cross-subsidies, circular debt financing and administratively determined tariffs all originated as seemingly sensible policy responses. Over time, they evolved into a complex web of distortions that now define Pakistan’s power sector. The battery revolution should not become the latest chapter in this history. The most immediate question concerns the proposed compensation itself. Every additional rupee paid for exported battery electricity ultimately has a source. If the payment is financed through higher consumer tariffs, ordinary electricity users subsidise battery owners. If financed through public resources, taxpayers assume another fiscal obligation. Unless the proposed payment reflects demonstrable savings through lower capacity utilisation, reduced reliance on expensive peaking generation, avoided transmission investments and lower fuel imports, it risks becoming another subsidy disguised as reform. The second issue concerns Pakistan’s peculiar electricity economics. The country simultaneously suffers from surplus installed generation capacity and shortages during particular hours of the day. Consumers continue paying enormous capacity charges even when power plants remain idle. Before introducing payments for battery discharge, policymakers should demonstrate whether distributed storage actually reduces these fixed obligations or merely shifts electricity from one time period to another while capacity payments continue unchanged. This distinction is fundamental. If batteries merely redistribute electricity without lowering total system costs, consumersmay simply end up paying twice: once for idle generating plants and again for battery incentives. PRIME’s analysis correctly highlights the dramatic increase in battery imports. Nevertheless, imports alone cannot determine public policy. Customs statistics reveal the volume of batteries entering Pakistan but not how they are ultimately deployed. Many imported batteries are likely destined for residential solar systems, telecommunications infrastructure, commercial backup systems, electric vehicles and industrial facilities rather than grid-support applications. Policy requires greater precision. Residential battery storage serving a single household differs fundamentally from utility-scale storage capable of providing ancillary grid services. The regulatory treatment, compensation mechanisms and operational obligations cannot be identical. Perhaps the most important omission concerns the electricity market itself. Time-of-Use pricing presupposes the existence of a reasonably competitive electricity market where prices reflect actual system conditions. Pakistan, however, continues to operate largely through administratively determined tariffs, long-term power purchase agreements and regulatory pricing decisions. Introducing another administratively determined premium without competitive price discovery risks creating fresh opportunities for regulatory arbitrage instead of improving market efficiency. The proposal also raises important questions of distributive justice. Battery storage remains concentrated among relatively affluent households and commercial consumers who have already invested in rooftop solar systems. Additional payments for exported electricity may transfer resources from ordinary grid-dependent consumers to wealthier “prosumers” capable of producing electricity themselves. A sound public policy must ask not only whether incentives improve efficiency but also who ultimately pays for them. Fiscal sustainability presents another challenge. Pakistan’s public finances remain under extraordinary pressure. Circular debt continues to impose significant costs upon the national exchequer while electricity subsidies consume scarce fiscal space. Every new incentive introduced into the power sector should be accompanied by transparent estimates of its medium-term fiscal consequences. Without such analysis, even economically desirable policies may produce unsustainable budgetary commitments. The environmental dimension deserves equal attention. Large-scale deployment of lithium-ion batteries inevitably raises questions concerning recycling, disposal, fire safety and hazardous waste management. Pakistan presently lacks a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework governing battery end-of-life management. Encouraging rapid battery adoption without simultaneously addressing environmental responsibilities merely postpones another policy problem for the future. Cybersecurity also enters the equation. As distributed storage becomes increasingly integrated with smart meters, digital communication systems and automated dispatch mechanisms, cybersecurity standards become an essential component of electricity regulation rather than an afterthought. The broader lesson extends beyond batteries. Pakistan’s remarkable solar revolution demonstrates that citizens and businesses are increasingly solving their own energy problems because the formal electricity system has become prohibitively expensive and unreliable. International observers have correctly described this transformation as one of the world’s most significant examples of consumer-led energy transition rather than state-led planning. Public policy should seek to complement—not constrain—this transition. However, complementing it

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that sets in when a war refuses to end on schedule. Five months into the conflict between the United States and Iran, we are living through it. Ceasefires are announced and collapse within weeks. Strikes are billed as decisive and are followed, days later, by more strikes. Each side insists the other will soon come to its senses, and each side is wrong. What we are watching is not a war moving toward resolution. It is a war that has become self-sustaining, and the longer it runs, the more countries get pulled into its logic whether they wanted a role in it or not. Saudi Arabia is the clearest example. For nearly four years, Riyadh had quietly extracted itself from the Yemen war, treating the 2022 ceasefire with the Houthis as one of the few unambiguous foreign policy wins of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s tenure. That restraint is now gone. When the Houthis resumed missile fire at Israel in solidarity with Tehran, and then began striking Saudi oil infrastructure directly, Riyadh had no real choice but to respond. It bombed Hodeidah. The Houthis retaliated against Aramco facilities in Yanbu and Jizan. A conflict Saudi Arabia spent years trying to bury is now, again, live on its border, not because Riyadh chose it but because a war between Washington and Tehran left no room for neutrality. This is the pattern worth naming plainly: nobody in this conflict is fighting the war they intended to fight. Washington launched its campaign framed around Iran’s nuclear program, wagering that decisive strikes would force capitulation or collapse. Instead it has strikes running past the two-week mark with no clear terminus, American service members killed in Jordan and Iraq, and a president publicly conceding that the exit could be “diplomatic or military” — which is another way of saying nobody currently knows how this ends. Iran, for its part, has responded to devastating strikes on its cities not with capitulation but with exactly the kind of asymmetric, proxy-driven defiance its doctrine was built for, activating fronts in Iraq, the Gulf, and now Yemen that cost it little and cost everyone else a great deal. The Strait of Hormuz tells the same story in economic terms. Daily vessel traffic through one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints has fallen to a small fraction of its prewar level. That is not an abstraction. It shows up in tanker insurance premiums in Piraeus and London, in fuel costs in Mumbai and Rotterdam, in the balance sheets of countries that have precisely nothing to do with this fight. War aims that once seemed narrowly bilateral — Washington versus Tehran, over centrifuges and missile stockpiles — have metastasized into a tax on global trade that nobody voted for and nobody can opt out of. It is tempting, watching this unfold, to look for a single culprit. Commentators sympathetic to Washington will point to Iran’s decades of proxy warfare, its nuclear ambiguity, its crackdown on its own protesters, and argue the current campaign is simply overdue accountability. Commentators sympathetic to Tehran will point to a US-Israeli strike that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader and ask what state, faced with the assassination of its head of state, would not treat that as an act of war demanding a response. Both arguments contain real grievances. Neither survives contact with what has actually happened since: a conflict that both sides insist is about narrow, defensible aims but that neither side has been able to keep narrow. Wars rarely stay the size their architects intend. What should worry observers most is not any single strike or retaliation but the absence of an exit ramp anyone believes in. Ceasefires here have not functioned as steps toward peace; they have functioned as pauses for rearmament, evidenced by how quickly each one has collapsed back into nightly bombing. That is the signature of a conflict without a theory of victory — one where both governments can inflict real pain on the other indefinitely, but where neither can convert that pain into a settlement it can sell to its own public. In that kind of war, the fighting does not stop because someone wins. It stops, if it stops, because the costs finally exceed what either government’s domestic politics can absorb — and on the evidence of the past five months, that threshold keeps receding rather than approaching. Saudi Arabia’s reluctant return to the Yemen battlefield should be read as an early warning rather than a footnote. It shows how a conflict that both Washington and Tehran describe as fundamentally about themselves keeps finding new participants who never agreed to join. If this war continues on its current trajectory, the question worth asking is not which superpower prevails, but how many other countries, currencies, and shipping lanes get quietly conscripted before it does.

KARACHI: Before the city wakes up, thousands of sanitation workers are already at work. They sweep roads, collect household waste, clean neighbourhoods and, in some cases, enter sewer lines and manholes to clear blockages. Among them are many workers from Christian and Hindu communities who perform some of Karachi’s most difficult and hazardous jobs. On August 11, Pakistan observes National Minorities Day. The occasion is usually marked with messages about equality, tolerance and the contribution of minority communities to the country. But for many minority sanitation workers in Karachi, the day will be no different from any other: they will be out cleaning the city, often while facing low wages, insecure employment, inadequate safety equipment and social discrimination. Their problems extend beyond poverty. They include workplace safety, access to healthcare, employment benefits and the stigma attached to the occupation itself. There is no reliable and up-to-date official figure showing exactly how many Christian and Hindu sanitation workers are currently employed in Karachi. A World Bank-linked environmental and social assessment, however, recorded around 11,400 sweepers and sanitary workers employed by the city’s district authorities. It also noted additional workers employed through SSWMB contractors and a large informal workforce involved in door-to-door waste collection and material recovery. The 11,400 figure therefore does not represent Karachi’s entire sanitation workforce. The actual number is considerably broader once outsourced, daily-wage and informal workers are included. Sanitation work in Pakistan has for decades been disproportionately associated with religious minorities. Research by Amnesty International has documented the concentration of Christians and Hindus in sanitation work and found evidence of discrimination in recruitment, employment and working conditions. The issue therefore begins well before a worker picks up a broom. It is also about whether people from particular religious and social backgrounds are being denied opportunities to enter other occupations. The question of wages is equally important. The Sindh government has announced a minimum monthly wage of Rs43,000 with effect from July 1, 2026. While the announcement is significant for low-paid workers, the more important question for sanitation workers is whether the amount actually reaches them. A substantial part of Karachi’s sanitation work is performed through contractors, outsourcing arrangements and daily-wage employment. Previous reporting has documented workers employed through SSWMB contractors receiving wages below the applicable minimum wage. In one reported case, a minor working for an SSWMB contractor was receiving Rs15,000 a month when the minimum wage for unskilled workers was Rs32,000. The new Rs43,000 minimum wage therefore requires more than a government notification. It requires effective enforcement and monitoring, particularly where public sanitation services are outsourced. If a worker performs essential public work through a contractor, there must be clarity about who is responsible for ensuring that he receives the legally prescribed wage and other employment rights. For sanitation workers, however, low wages are not the only concern. The nature of the work itself can be fatal. In September 2025, three sanitation workers died in Karachi’s Usmanabad area after inhaling toxic gases while cleaning a manhole. The victims were identified as 22-year-old Vishal, 19-year-old Shahir and 42-year-old George. A fourth worker survived after being rescued. The deaths were followed by further fatalities. In October 2025, The Express Tribune reported that six sanitation workers had died from suffocation while cleaning sewers in Karachi in just over a month. The deaths occurred in Sohrab Goth, Garden and Landhi. According to the report, the victims were privately hired daily-wage workers who lacked adequate safety equipment and training. On April 17, 2026, three private sanitation workers died in Surjani Town after inhaling toxic fumes while cleaning a choked sewerage line. Police identified the deceased as Wilson, Waqas and Nazeer and said all three belonged to the Christian community. Such incidents follow a familiar pattern. A worker enters a sewer to clear a blockage. Toxic gases overcome him. Another worker may enter in an attempt to rescue him and can suffer the same fate. Without proper protective equipment, gas detection devices, training and rescue arrangements, a routine cleaning operation can quickly turn into multiple deaths. The exact number of sanitation workers who have died in Karachi is difficult to establish because there is no comprehensive publicly available official database covering municipal, private, contracted and informal workers. In October 2025, activist Naeem Sadiq told Arab News that approximately 100 manual scavengers die every year in Pakistan, including around 30 in Karachi. He also warned that the actual number could be higher because of underreporting. The figure is an activist estimate rather than an official government statistic, but it illustrates the scale of the concern. At the national level, Amnesty International documented 80 sanitation workers who died in 50 manhole incidents between 2011 and 2023. Of these, 40 were Christians, 22 Muslims and 18 Hindus. Most of the deaths were associated with poisonous gases and asphyxiation. The figures highlight a wider concern: minority workers are disproportionately represented in some of the most hazardous sanitation jobs, while also facing social and economic disadvantages. A survey by the National Commission for Human Rights of 42 sanitation workers in Karachi provides further evidence of poor working conditions. Thirty-three workers, or 78.6 per cent, said they had never been provided personal protective equipment. Twenty-four, or 57.1 per cent, reported workplace injuries. The same number reported verbal or physical abuse, threats, non-payment or other forms of discrimination. These findings raise a basic question about Karachi’s sanitation system: the issue is not only who will clean the city, but under what conditions the people cleaning it are expected to work. Another study involving 400 sewerage and sanitary workers in Karachi found that 228, or 57 per cent, were sweepers and 172, or 43 per cent, were sewerage workers. The study found that 96.5 per cent had not been immunised against typhoid, hepatitis and tetanus, while 91 per cent were not using safety equipment at work. For workers exposed daily to sewage, waste and potentially toxic environments, protective clothing, gloves, boots, masks, vaccination, health examinations and emergency support should not

The passing of Professor Amin Mughal in London on August 12, 2026, at the age of 91, has left me with an overwhelming sense of personal bereavement. I have lost a mentor, friend and former colleague; Pakistan has lost one of the last representatives of a generation for whom progressive politics was inseparable from humanism, scholarship, intellectual integrity and personal courage. Harris Khalique called his departure “یہ ماتمِ وقت کی گھڑی ہے”—an hour for mourning the times—and described him as “the last of the Mohicans who touched so many lives.” These words capture the magnitude of the loss. Professor Mughal belonged to a generation that imagined Pakistan as a democratic, pluralistic and egalitarian state—not as a security-dominated order governed by fear, dogma and privilege. Born in Punjab in 1935, he taught English at Islamia College, Civil Lines, Lahore. His teaching career there ended because of his trade union activities. For Professor Mughal, principles were never dispensable instruments of convenience. Losing employment did not silence him. Along with Professor Manzoor Ahmed, he helped establish Shah Hussain College, transforming an act of official victimisation into another avenue for education and intellectual resistance. As a leader of the National Awami Party, he was imprisoned more than once. His politics sprang from compassion for workers, peasants, minorities and all those denied dignity by structures of power. It was not the doctrinaire radicalism of slogans. It was a deeply humane commitment to freedom from exploitation, arbitrary authority and cultural suffocation. He was associated with Lail-o-Nahar and later with the weekly Viewpoint, edited by the legendary Mazhar Ali Khan. I had the privilege of working with Professor Mughal at Viewpoint from 1979 to 1984. Its modest office at 4-Lawrence Road, Lahore, became my real university. Mazhar Ali Khan, I.A. Rehman, Zafar Iqbal Mirza—affectionately known as ZIM—Alys Faiz and Amin Mughal represented journalism as a public trust rather than a commercial enterprise. Reflecting on those formative years in my tribute to ZIM, I wrote: “Amin Mughal and Alys Faiz were so proficient in writing that few could match their stature. They also taught me the art of journalism with great affection and dedication.” That remains one of the greatest blessings of my life. Professor Mughal taught by example. His scholarship was vast, his editing precise and his intellectual standards uncompromising. He corrected younger colleagues without belittling them and encouraged inquiry without demanding conformity. The Viewpoint collective stood firm during General Ziaul Haq’s brutal dictatorship, when truth invited censorship, dismissal, imprisonment or exile. Literature and journalism became important sites of resistance during those years. Professor Mughal understood that control over language, culture and historical memory was central to authoritarian rule. His engagement with Urdu and Punjabi literature was therefore never merely aesthetic; it was part of a larger struggle to recover suppressed voices and alternative visions of Pakistan. Forced into political exile in 1984, he settled in London and never returned to Pakistan. Exile, however, could not sever his intellectual or emotional relationship with his homeland. He worked for Daily Jang and, in the early 1990s, edited the Urdu daily Awaaz. Although the newspaper survived for only a little over a year, it represented another attempt to provide Britain’s Pakistani community with a serious and progressive public forum. Writing in The News on Sunday in 2008, Arif Azad recalled Professor Mughal as looking “his usual sharp and buoyant self, dressed in impeccable attire as is his wont.” He described him as belonging to “the vanishing breed of left-wing Pakistan intellectuals” in whom one could still discern the lofty and humane aspirations associated with Pakistan’s early journey. The description was exact. Professor Mughal’s impeccable dress reflected something deeper: an inner discipline, dignity and refusal to be diminished by adversity. Political persecution could deprive him of employment and homeland, but it could not deprive him of intellectual independence or personal grace. His Finchley home gradually became, in Arif Azad’s memorable formulation, “a port of call” for visiting writers, politicians and political and cultural activists from both sides of the border. For decades it served as an informal salon, archive and classroom. Generations of visitors encountered there a formidable memory, an incisive mind and a host of unfailing generosity. Even when he withdrew from active engagement in South Asian politics, he remained an enduring reference point for politically conscious Pakistanis in Britain. His interests ranged across philosophy, literature, history, political economy and contemporary affairs. He wrote perceptively on Bhagat Singh and, following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, produced After Benazir Bhutto: Some reflections. Although he had opposed her politics, he recognised her courage and wrote that in the imagination of the masses she had acquired a mystical significance destined to inspire future struggles. That ability to rise above personal political preference and acknowledge truth distinguished him as a genuine intellectual. Professor Mughal’s life reminds us that exile is not merely physical displacement. It is also the condition imposed upon ideas that a state refuses to accommodate. Pakistan expelled or marginalised many of its finest minds and then wondered why intolerance, intellectual poverty and historical amnesia prevailed. Professor Mughal remained physically in London, but intellectually he never ceased to inhabit the Pakistan for which he had struggled. One by one, the great teachers of my Viewpoint years have departed. Their passing makes the country feel lonelier and its moral landscape immeasurably poorer. Professor Amin Mughal leaves no office, fortune or monument carrying his name. His true legacy survives in the minds he liberated, the writers he encouraged, the causes he defended and the generations he taught to question received wisdom. Farewell, dear mentor and friend. You lived in exile, but your ideas never left us. They will remain at home wherever people struggle for a democratic, pluralistic, just and humane Pakistan.

Climate change is no longer solely an environmental concern, it has become one of the defining economic and trade challenges of the twenty-first century. Around the world, governments are increasingly using market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while maintaining industrial competitiveness and economic growth. Among these mechanisms, the Emissions Trading System (ETS) has emerged as one of the most effective policy instruments. According to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026, there are now 87 carbon pricing instruments operating globally, including emissions trading systems and carbon taxes, covering nearly 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. These instruments generated over US$107 billion in public revenues in 2025, demonstrating that carbon pricing has evolved from an environmental policy into an important pillar of economic and fiscal governance. In the case of Pakistan, one that is most vulnerable to climate change, the discourse & discussion on emissions trading has become increasingly pertinent. While Pakistan contributes less than one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains among the nation’s most severely affected by climate-induced disasters. The catastrophic floods of 2022 alone caused economic losses estimated at more than US$30 billion, highlighting the enormous economic costs of climate vulnerability. As Pakistan seeks to achieve sustainable economic growth while fulfilling its commitments under the Paris Agreement, an Emissions Trading System offers an opportunity to integrate climate action with industrial competitiveness, investment promotion, and long-term economic resilience. An Emissions Trading System, commonly referred to as a cap-and-trade mechanism, establishes a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that regulated industries are permitted to emit. Within this overall cap, companies receive or purchase emission allowances that authorize them to emit a specified quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent. Firms that reduce their emissions below their allocated limits can sell their unused allowances to companies that exceed their emission caps. This market-based approach creates a financial incentive for industries to invest in cleaner technologies, improve energy efficiency, and reduce emissions while allowing businesses the flexibility to determine the most cost-effective compliance strategy. The success of emissions trading systems across the world demonstrates the growing importance of carbon markets in modern economic management. The European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), launched in 2005, remains the world’s largest multinational carbon market and has significantly reduced emissions from power generation, manufacturing, and aviation. China now operates the world’s largest ETS by emissions covered, initially focusing on the power sector and gradually expanding to additional industries. South Korea, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Kazakhstan, and several states in the United States and Canada have also established operational emissions trading systems tailored to their economic structures. Collectively, jurisdictions accounting for almost two-thirds of global GDP have either implemented or are actively developing direct carbon pricing mechanisms, signalling that carbon markets are rapidly becoming mainstream economic policy rather than experimental environmental initiatives. Across South Asia, governments are increasingly recognising carbon markets as instruments of economic competitiveness rather than solely environmental regulation. India has initiated the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) while expanding its long-standing Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) programme to improve industrial energy efficiency. Bangladesh is developing the institutional and regulatory foundations needed to participate in voluntary carbon markets and future compliance mechanisms. Together, these developments indicate a gradual regional shift towards integrating climate policy with industrial development, trade competitiveness, and sustainable economic growth. Pakistan has also begun laying the foundations for a future carbon market, although the country remains at an early stage of development. The National Climate Change Policy, Pakistan’s updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the National Adaptation Plan recognise the importance of market-based mechanisms for reducing emissions. The Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination, together with development partners including the World Bank, GIZ, UNDP, and the Asian Development Bank, has initiated policy dialogue and capacity-building initiatives aimed at strengthening Pakistan’s carbon market readiness. At the provincial level, Punjab has emerged as the frontrunner in preparing for emissions trading. With technical support from GIZ, the Environment Protection and Climate Change Department and the Planning and Development Board have initiated collaborative efforts to develop the institutional architecture necessary for an Emissions Trading System. These initiatives include the development of emissions inventories, digital Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems, the Green Credit Initiative, and the strengthening of Punjab’s Climate Watch platform to improve emissions monitoring and support evidence-based climate decision-making. Although these initiatives do not yet constitute a formal ETS, they represent important building blocks for a future provincial pilot that could eventually inform the development of a national emissions trading framework. Despite these encouraging developments, Pakistan faces several institutional and technical challenges before an operational ETS can be introduced. Reliable emissions inventories remain incomplete across many industrial sectors, while comprehensive Monitoring, Reporting and Verification systems are still evolving. Institutional responsibilities for climate policy, industrial regulation, energy management, and environmental protection remain fragmented across multiple federal and provincial agencies, requiring stronger coordination. Furthermore, many industries and institutions have limited experience with greenhouse gas accounting, carbon pricing & reporting, emissions verification that highlight the need for substantial technical capacity building. Nevertheless the opportunities created by ETS are significant, not only due to environmental benefits but formulates holistic markets that contribute to the world economy. Carbon market revenues have already crossed the threshold of almost US$30 billion in 2016 to over US$107 billion in 2025, representing the rapid and robust growth of climate finance and green investments worldwide. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) signals a new era where carbon compliance is becoming integral to international trade. Although Pakistan’s textile exports are not yet covered, global buyers increasingly demand transparent emissions reporting and low-carbon production. Developing an Emissions Trading System (ETS) and robust Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems will help Pakistani industries strengthen compliance and safeguard export competitiveness. Pakistan stands at a crossroads in its climate and economic development. With an estimated greenhouse gas emissions of around 500 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) per year, of which

Pakistan has entered a crucial phase in its constitutional and administrative journey. With a population exceeding 250 million, the governance model that served the country decades ago is increasingly being questioned. Recent public discussions, including remarks by Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi advocating a debate on administrative reforms in light of Pakistan’s growing population, have reignited an important national conversation: Is it time to rethink how Pakistan is governed? In my view, the answer is yes. The real challenge is not simply whether Pakistan should create more provinces. The real challenge is how governance can be brought closer to the people. A modern state cannot be effectively administered through excessive centralization when its population, economy, and urban centers have expanded dramatically over the past several decades. The first and most important reform should be the empowerment of local governments. District administrations, metropolitan authorities, and municipal governments should be given genuine constitutional authority, financial autonomy, and administrative independence. Citizens interact with government primarily through local institutions. Therefore, healthcare, education, sanitation, water supply, transport, municipal planning, and public safety should be managed by empowered local governments rather than through an overly centralized administrative structure. Karachi represents the strongest example of why governance reform has become a necessity rather than a choice. As Pakistan’s largest city and economic engine, Karachi deserves a governance model specifically designed for a modern global megacity. Despite its enormous contribution to the national economy, the city continues to face serious challenges in urban planning, infrastructure, traffic management, public transport, water supply, waste management, and municipal administration. In my opinion, simply placing Karachi under direct federal control would not automatically solve these problems. The federal government already carries enormous national responsibilities, and transferring administrative authority without structural reforms may simply relocate existing governance challenges. Instead, Karachi requires a metropolitan governance model comparable to internationally recognized cities such as New York, where professional city administration, clearly defined institutional responsibilities, strong municipal leadership, effective policing coordination, urban planning, and financial autonomy work together under a comprehensive metropolitan framework. Such a model could improve service delivery while ensuring greater accountability and long-term planning. Governance reform should not stop at strengthening local governments. Pakistan should also seriously consider creating additional provinces wherever there is genuine administrative need, broad public consultation, and constitutional consensus. Smaller provinces can improve administrative efficiency, strengthen regional representation, and make governments more responsive to local communities. More representative provincial structures can also help ensure that the concerns of both urban and rural populations receive greater attention at the national level. Equally important is the devolution of administrative authority to districts and local institutions. Excessive concentration of political and administrative power often limits opportunities for ordinary citizens to influence decisions that directly affect their lives. A stronger local government system would enable communities to participate more effectively in governance while improving transparency, accountability, and public service delivery. This debate should never be viewed as an attempt to weaken Sindh or divide its people. On the contrary, I believe these reforms would strengthen Sindh by ensuring that development and decision-making reach every corner of the province. Whether someone lives in Kandhkot, Larkana, Mithi, Islamkot, Mirpurkhas, Badin, Hyderabad, Thatta, or Karachi, every citizen deserves equal access to quality healthcare, education, infrastructure, clean drinking water, municipal services, and economic opportunities. An equally important aspect of this reform process is public awareness and civic education. Pakistan needs a network of credible academics, constitutional experts, economists, retired civil servants, educationists, and respected members of civil society who can engage directly with communities across Sindh, particularly in rural and underserved areas where access to balanced political information may be limited. Their role should be to explain, in Sindhi and other local languages, the constitutional, administrative, and economic implications of decentralization, stronger local governments, and, where appropriate, the creation of additional provinces. Many citizens hear conflicting political narratives about these proposals. In my view, people should be encouraged to evaluate reforms on the basis of evidence, administrative efficiency, and public welfare rather than fear or political rhetoric. If these reforms genuinely improve representation, accountability, and service delivery, they should be supported regardless of political interests. Ultimately, the objective should not be to benefit any political party but to empower every citizen and ensure that governance serves the people instead of entrenched centers of power. Unfortunately, discussions about administrative reform are often overshadowed by political narratives that generate fear and misunderstanding. In my opinion, governance reforms should be evaluated on their administrative merits rather than through the lens of partisan politics. Citizens should be encouraged to examine whether decentralisation would improve their quality of life instead of viewing every proposal as a political contest. Meaningful reform also requires strengthening independent institutions, ensuring merit-based appointments, improving accountability, and modernising public administration. Whether Pakistan ultimately retains its parliamentary system or chooses another constitutional framework, lasting success will depend upon transparent institutions, professional governance, and effective local administration. Pakistan’s future does not depend merely on drawing new boundaries on a map. It depends upon building a governance system that places citizens—not bureaucracy or political centralization, at the center of public administration. Strong local governments, empowered districts, efficient metropolitan administrations, and, where constitutionally appropriate, additional provinces can together create a stronger federation, a more prosperous Sindh, and a better future for every Pakistani. A prosperous Pakistan will be built not through the concentration of power, but through the fair and effective distribution of power to the people.