The Federal Resource Grab

How Pakistan's Provinces Are Being Exploited

Pakistan's natural resource management saga continues to unfold as a cautionary tale of how centralized power structures systematically undermine provincial autonomy, despite constitutional guarantees to the contrary. Fifteen years after the landmark 18th Amendment promised provinces greater control over their resources, we find ourselves witnessing the same patterns of exploitation, particularly in resource-rich regions like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Sindh, and Balochistan.

The Constitutional Mirage

The 18th Amendment to Pakistan's Constitution, passed with such fanfare in 2010, established joint ownership of natural resources between provinces and the federal government through Article 172(3). This legislation was heralded as a watershed moment for federalism in Pakistan. Yet, the reality on the ground tells a different story, one of systematic circumvention and subversion of provincial rights.

Today, we see a federal government that pays lip service to provincial autonomy while simultaneously orchestrating elaborate schemes to maintain its stranglehold on the nation's mineral wealth. This contradiction between constitutional promise and political reality has created a governance crisis that threatens Pakistan's stability and economic future.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: A Province Under Siege

KP stands as a prime example of this troubling dynamic. Blessed with abundant deposits of marble, granite, precious gemstones, chromite, and copper, the province should be thriving. Instead, its resources are being systematically diverted to feed federal coffers with minimal reinvestment in local development.

The recently proposed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines and Minerals Bill 2025 represents a genuine attempt by the provincial government to assert control over its natural endowment. Despite Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur's insistence that the bill was developed through proper stakeholder consultation, federal authorities have launched a coordinated campaign to undermine this legislation, characterizing it as "hasty" and "ill-conceived."

This federal interference epitomizes a broader pattern: when provinces attempt to exercise their constitutional rights, they face obstruction, bureaucratic hurdles, and outright sabotage from Islamabad. The federal government's actions suggest a fundamental unwillingness to relinquish the centralized control that has defined Pakistan's resource governance for decades.

The Broader Pattern of Exploitation

KP is not alone in this struggle. Across Pakistan, we see similar conflicts playing out:

In Sindh, the federal government's unilateral decision to construct new canals on the Indus River, including the controversial Cholistan Canal, has provoked fierce opposition. Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah has gone so far as to threaten the use of force to halt construction, citing flagrant violations of the 1991 Water Accord. The federal government's response? Dismissive statements and continued construction plans, with little regard for Sindh's concerns about water security.

Balochistan presents perhaps the most tragic case study. Despite its extraordinary mineral wealth, the province remains Pakistan's most impoverished region. The Reko Diq copper-gold project exemplifies how major resource development frequently bypasses local interests. Federal authorities court foreign investors while failing to address the province's legitimate grievances about benefit-sharing and environmental protection. Is it any wonder that such policies have fueled decades of insurgency?

International Parallels: A Global Problem

Pakistan is not unique in this struggle. Around the world, we see similar patterns of resource exploitation by central authorities:

In Peru, indigenous communities continue to fight against state-backed mining operations that threaten their water sources and traditional ways of life. March 2025 saw massive protests against Glencore's Antapaccay mine, with communities demanding meaningful consultation and environmental safeguards.

Chile's lithium-rich Atacama Desert has become ground zero for conflicts between indigenous peoples and mining interests, with local communities fighting to protect critical water resources from extraction projects that primarily benefit distant political and economic elites.

The Democratic Republic of Congo offers a particularly sobering example, where mineral wealth has fueled decades of conflict, with neighboring countries and multinational corporations exploiting resources while local populations endure poverty and violence.

The True Cost of Centralized Control

This federal resource grab exacts a devastating toll:

Economically, it perpetuates underdevelopment in resource-rich regions. KP's marble industry alone could generate billions in revenue and thousands of jobs if properly managed at the provincial level. Instead, haphazard federal policies have led to wasteful extraction, smuggling, and minimal local benefit.

Environmentally, the consequences are equally severe. Without provincial oversight, mining operations frequently violate environmental standards, contaminating water sources and agricultural land. The federal government's distant bureaucrats rarely bear the consequences of these violations.

Socially, the continued exploitation fuels regional resentment and political instability. When communities see their resources extracted with minimal benefit, while poverty and unemployment persist, the foundations for conflict are laid.

If Pakistan is to avoid the resource curse that has plagued so many developing nations, it must take several critical steps:

First, the federal government must honor both the letter and spirit of the 18th Amendment. This means allowing provinces genuine control over their mineral resources, including licensing, environmental regulation, and revenue collection.

Second, transparent revenue-sharing mechanisms must be established, ensuring that a substantial portion of resource wealth benefits local communities. This includes direct investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure in mining regions.

Third, environmental standards must be strengthened and enforced at the provincial level, with meaningful penalties for violations.

Finally, local communities must be given a real voice in resource development decisions. Consultation cannot be a box-checking exercise but must involve substantive dialogue and consent.

Conclusion

The ongoing conflict over resource rights in Pakistan represents more than a legal or administrative dispute, it strikes at the heart of our national identity. Are we a genuine federation where provinces enjoy meaningful autonomy, or merely a centralized state with federal window dressing?

As the federal government continues its attempts to usurp KP's mineral rights, we would do well to remember that sustainable development and national unity depend on respecting provincial autonomy and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing. The alternative, continued exploitation, promises only deeper divisions and missed opportunities for national development.

The choice is clear: either we honor our constitutional commitments to federalism and shared prosperity, or we continue down a path of resource exploitation that has failed Pakistan and countless other nations. The federal government's current trajectory suggests it has chosen the latter. It falls to citizens, provincial governments, and civil society to demand better.