Asif Mahmood
Criticism over the brutal cutting of forests in Islamabad is no longer limited to constructive accountability. It is increasingly turning into criticism for the sake of criticism, or rather criticism driven by stubbornness, ego, and fashion. What needs to be understood is that just as indiscriminate deforestation is a calamity, indiscriminate criticism carried out without thought, purely out of obstinacy or trend chasing, is no less a calamity. Those who understand the issue seek refuge from both of these extremist attitudes.
The CDA’s position is that it is cutting paper mulberry trees. This position is incorrect. In Shakarparian, not only paper mulberry trees were cut; many other trees were also wiped out. Contractors were sent into the forest with saws and they wreaked havoc. Clearly, this did not happen without reason. This happened with the connivance of the CDA.
Had there been no collusion, the CDA would have conducted a survey. Paper mulberry trees would have been identified. They would have been marked, and then the contractor would have been instructed to cut only the marked trees. Instead, trees were destroyed in a suspicious manner and entire areas were cleared. In some places, construction has already begun. This makes it clear that the objective was not to cut paper mulberry trees. The objective was these constructions. As a result, much more was cut along with the paper mulberry.
The Shakarparian forest is part of a national park, and no construction is permitted here. Yet hotels are operating there, a housing colony has already been built inside, and land has been illegally allotted to elite clubs. A trail that existed there has now been closed so that people do not come. Those who do go there are harassed by the police. There are full arrangements to keep people away. The government’s intentions regarding Shakarparian National Park are clear. This forest is now being turned into a concrete forest. We have shouted ourselves hoarse, but no one is willing to listen.
As if this was not calamity enough, even the criticism of this process has fallen prey to reaction, stubbornness, and ego. The real issue was left far behind, and in this confusion critics began extolling the supposed virtues of the paper mulberry, without realizing that they were effectively facilitating the CDA itself.
For example, a senior analyst, since junior analysts apparently do not exist, wrote that paper mulberry caused problems for only a few people, but by cutting it the entire city has been pushed into environmental disaster. This position is wrong to the point of absurdity and reveals how ignorant our analysts are of the most basic concepts of social science.
Paper mulberry causes respiratory problems. When spring arrives, hospitals fill with patients. This tree is the result of seeds imported from abroad and casually discarded, which ended up destroying the local environment. In the evening it releases a haze, birds do not nest in it, and it contributes to asthma, high blood pressure, and heart disease. A pollen count of 1500 is considered dangerous, but because of this tree Islamabad’s pollen count reaches as high as 82000. Last spring, more than two hundred thousand patients reached hospitals. Those who did not go to hospitals and treated themselves at home must also have numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Yet the senior analyst claims that only a few people are affected by it. The gentleman does not even understand the difference between a disease and an epidemic. A disease always affects only some people. Should nothing be done to prevent it until a senior analyst or an anchor’s family member falls victim to it?
Another gentleman wrote that paper mulberry is not dangerous at all. This attitude is a painful example of the depths to which journalism has sunk. In any other country, such abuse of press freedom through misinformation on medical matters would land people of this sort in jail. Here, however, it is a free for all. Wake up, pick up your mobile phone, and write whatever you wish.
Now after cutting paper mulberry, a senior analyst poured out torrents of supposed wisdom, arguing that trees are being cut in December and January and that replacement trees cannot be planted in this season. In his imagination, trees are like studio cameras that can be lifted from one place and instantly replaced with new ones elsewhere. People should understand that these are thousands of trees. Cutting them takes time. Once they are cut now, new trees will be planted in the next plantation season.
Islamabad is a planned city. Raising an outcry over every tree that is cut is not a balanced approach. As the city expands, trees will be cut. The real issue is whether the city’s original master plan is being compromised. That plan needs to be understood. Without understanding it, unnecessary criticism is nothing but foolishness.
One part of Islamabad is designated as a national park. These are forests where no construction is allowed. Rawal Lake, the Margalla Hills, and Shakarparian are part of it. If forests are cut here, it is illegal and there should be protest.
But another part of Islamabad consists of land that was acquired decades ago and deliberately left unused so that it could be utilized when needed. This is not forest land. When construction becomes necessary here, trees will be cut. This is logical and natural. The Margalla Enclave currently being developed is not being built on forests but on such acquired land.
To facilitate this, one road along Park Road has been connected to another road. There has been an uproar over this as well, claiming that forests have been cut. This too is not forest land. Beyond two hundred feet from the road, this land is allocated for offices and institutions. Many institutions are already built there. Within this half furlong stretch, one road has been connected to another, yet there is noise that forests have been destroyed.
No forest was cut. Acquired land designated for these purposes was used. Why was it done. Because there was a need. Kerry Road had become too narrow. When attempts were made to widen it, the local population objected, saying do not destroy our shops, plazas, and homes, find another solution. So a kind of bypass was created, saving the local market and businesses. What exactly is wrong with that.
A legitimate complaint and a legitimate demand to protect the national park have been turned into a spectacle because of stubbornness, lack of sense, and ego. The interesting thing is that the place where their own Media Town was built was formally forest land. At that time, no junior or senior analyst felt any moral outrage. In the CDA’s Park Enclave society on Park Road, such a magnificent ballot was held that not only did senior journalists get plots, they got them conveniently, so no one noticed that trees had been cut there.
Where the CDA is destroying forests within the national park, criticism should have been focused. Instead, indiscriminate criticism has, in practice, facilitated the CDA. If only we could show moderation in any matter.