PML-N gearing up to defend CPEC choices

Ahsan Iqbal briefs party’s MPs from K-P on western route projects


Fawad Ali January 12, 2016
PHOTO: AFP

PESHAWAR:


A day after Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Pervaiz Khattak demanded that the government clear the air regarding the western route of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has embarked on a campaign to mobilise its parliamentarians in the province to counter the narrative.


An official of the Planning Commission told The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity that Federal Minister for Planning and Development Ahsan Iqbal has directed a team of the commission to brief PML-N parliamentarians on the CPEC.

China urges Pakistani parties to settle CPEC differences

The move was also confirmed by some PML-N MPAs including Sobia Shahid who said that Iqbal and officials from the commission had briefed her about the actual CPEC routes and its components which will be set up in K-P.

Providing details about the briefing she received, Shahid said that of the projects proposed by the K-P government, the centre had approved construction of eight industrial parks in the province.

Her claim was backed by Sardar Aurangzeb Nalota, a PML-N MPA from Abbottabad. He said that a total of 27 industrial parks have been planned along the CPEC, eight of those in K-P including in Peshawar, Nowshera, Swabi and Havelian.

However, when asked that as per the demands of other parties if Iqbal had provided any documents to back up the promises, Nalota replied in the negative.



However, the claims were contradicted by chairman of the K-P board of Investment and Trade Senator Mohsin Aziz who said that the industrial parks were in fact projects of the provincial government.

Persisting stalemate: Govt fails to assuage APC’s concerns on CPEC

“There is only one dry port outlined in CPEC which will be set up in Havelian,” Nalota further claimed, adding that a double track railway line from Peshawar to Karachi would also be constructed under CPEC.

The MP also refuted allegations made by the K-P CM that his province had been kept out of consultations on the project, claiming that the province had been represented by Khattak’s adviser Abdul Karim Khan Tordher at a meeting called by Iqbal.

The claim was refuted by K-P minister for Labour and Mineral Development Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli, who said that when the planning minister was pressed at a briefing about the project on the identity of the person who represented K-P at the consultative meeting, it emerged that an industrialist from Punjab called Syed Umar had attended.

Appreciation: CPEC termed lifeline project for K-P

Sikandar Sherpao -- the provincial chief of the Qaumi Watan Party -- with whom Tordher is affiliated, also rejected Nalota’s claim that he had attended the meeting.

Sherpao went on to add that they were only seeking documentary proofs that the government was working on the western route of CPEC such as agreements and MoUs signed and the components agreed upon with China.

“During Iqbal’s briefings, we asked him to provide complete details of all the agreements that the government of Pakistan has signed with China regarding CPEC and show us any work that has taken place on the ground,” he said.

“Actions speak louder than words.”

Taking to war to social media

Ever since the CPEC was announced, various groups on social media have been spreading purported maps of the mega-project which showed how K-P and Balochistan would be ignored.

No province will be ignored in CPEC, says Iqbal

PML-N MPAs had initially dismissed it as anti-PML-N propaganda. But now, the party seems to have decided that action is required to counter the propaganda.

The provincial PML-N leadership has apparently been directed by Iqbal to hire a team from the party’s youth wing to counter the claims of K-P government and opposition parties online.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 12th, 2016.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ