Over 22000 schools were destroyed or damaged by floods in 2022, while the recent floods in KP have destroyed 61 government schools and damaged another 414. Do you wonder why? Simply, because most of these schools had been built too close to waterways and flood-prone land. But, why did the government choose to build schools in such unsafe areas?
Based on my direct observation during numerous assessments across the country, I discovered that majority of the new schools are not located where they are most needed. Instead, they are built on land “donated” by local influentials. Such donations are not purely acts of generosity. The land given is usually the least valuable plot – flood-prone, low-lying, or otherwise undesirable. In exchange, the landowner secures a permanent job for a relative or supporter, often as a chowkidar. Politicians approve these schemes because it strengthens their local support base. The result is that new schools are frequently located in unsafe places, serving political interests rather than community needs.
The same – utterly bizarre chicanery – extends to rural water supply schemes. These schemes, typically involving a tubewell, an overhead tank, and a distribution network, could in principle provide clean water to households. But in practice, many are approved because they create two new jobs – a chowkidar and a tubewell operator – which can be distributed as political favors. Communities are rarely asked to participate in planning or to pay for water use. Without community ownership or financial sustainability, these systems often fall into disrepair within a few years, leaving behind non-functional infrastructure.
The provincial government has announced plans to construct pre-fabricated schools in flood-hit areas, which may provide some temporary relief. But real change requires a broader course correction.
First, school sites must be selected based on population needs, accessibility, and safety, not on land donations. Where necessary, land should be acquired properly, even if it carries a cost. Second, strict rules must be enforced to prevent the construction of schools, hospitals, or water schemes in floodplains, riverbanks, or other high-risk areas. Hazard mapping should be updated regularly and used as the basis for all approvals. Third, communities should have a greater role in deciding where new schools and schemes are built. When local people participate in planning and are asked to contribute to upkeep, they are more likely to ensure sustainability. Finally, transparency must be strengthened. Every new public project should be mapped, its costs disclosed, and its location justified in light of safety and need.
Unless, we change the way we plan and approve rural infrastructure, schools will continue to collapse.
