Of politics, suggestions and Kalabagh dam
Today she is poisoned. The venom of politics continues to affect her badly. It is already widespread. Rightly administered and it will accelerate her death. She needs life and a saint. But they cannot afford either. There is malice in the wonderland. Of its own kind, it has always lurked. Only the tongue had gone missing.
In Pakistan, politics, like liberal fascism, is an indispensible phenomenon. Whereas it can be beneficial, it may prove to be curiously detrimental. If allowed to live a life of its own, it can be pernicious. The underlying method politics subscribes to, though seemingly democratic, can often be barbarian. To be barbarian is not a crime. Crimes require passion and ambition. Barbarians have none. Thus, if the occasion permits, and there is occasion always, she will witness how ugly the face of politics can be.
It is an unpardonable solecism to call politics dirty. Politics is immune to any semblance of purity or impurity, if you like. It is seldom altruistic, though disguised otherwise. That is its beauty, therein its perfidious charm. The ultimate goal of all politics is to defeat the popular will.
To Pakistan, the creation of Kalabagh dam is rather imperative. This is a suggestion, the power of which must not be underrated. For suggestions are dangerous devices. They are an atypical breed turned genius. A symphony or cacophony – suggestions permeate the mental corridors relentlessly. They operate covertly to ripen only when the time comes. In the most subtle form, they deftly tinker with the innermost revolution of human psyche. The innermost revolution is for the pursuit of truth. What is more impregnable than all forces combined is a suggestion un-rebutted which has run its course and matured.
The opposition to Kalabagh dam is a product of suggestions of distrust and misconception which offer frequent homage to our brethren in KP and Sindh. The opposition is not to Kalabagh dam alone. It is to the credibility of Punjab. There is a serious inter-provincial trust deficit, which begs to be purged. Coupled with other technical misgivings and the vested interests of certain political actors, the issue has become more of a fallacy amid the wrecks.
The Awami National Party (ANP) in KP retains its hostile attitude towards the creation of Kalabagh dam. Amongst other grievances, in the construction of the dam it foresees the flooding of Nowshera as highly likely. Technical consultants from world over have dispelled such an outcome yet the hostility persists. It is reason against the emotional alibi. Political rhetoric will not permit the latter’s defeat. For once the sibyl has spoken; a subject cannot gambol away from that which has been uttered. An objection once taken howsoever unwarranted cannot after all be allowed to vaporise so readily in politics. If it is, it is at the cost of political repute. The naïve people of KP are thereafter left with little if any choice. They must follow suit without knowing that when the field survey staff placed the marker slabs to indicate the ground levels for cross-section of the Kabul River, the survey markers were removed (by those who were against the construction of Kalabagh dam) and placed on the roof tops of houses, thereby creating the impression that the houses would be submerged. It was this petty but sufficient to breed skepticism.
Skepticism once bred consumes all rationality before it begs leave. Despite the reservoir conservation level being subsequently reduced by 10 feet, politics continued to exploit the issue. The ANP threatened to bomb the dam if built. She was afraid then and still fears their proclivity.
Dams world over are construed as epitomes of progression. Those who do not progress must virtually always perish. The transitory inconvenience, in terms of displacement (which is compensated for) and ecosystem relegation, which their construction causes, is significantly outweighed by the benefits they offer.
The construction of dams, in the face of the politics of water, is not, however, novel. The 1930’s, despite political opposition and the Great Depression, saw the construction of the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River at the behest of US President Roosevelt. His predecessor, US President Hoover, found himself engulfed in the politics of water, hence unable to order construction of the dam. In the 1950’s, the Egyptian President, Gemal Abdul Nasser, after having nationalised the Suez Canal was visited by enormous political opposition when it came to the construction of the Aswan High Dam. When the west declined to afford subvention, Nasser turned to the Russians for assistance. Aswan High Dam was built. In similar vein, the Sardar Sarover Dam on the sacrosanct Narmada River in India, despite political and religious opposition, was built. Had consensus been sought, would these dams have been constructed? Where is our Roosevelt? Where is our Nasser?
Will you really watch her die?
The writer is a practising Barrister at Lahore. He can be contacted at: [email protected]
