EVERY now and then, we come across some heated debate in media that blames the government for brain drain, and is dismissive of the idea that Pakistan’s greatest of assets lies in exporting its workforce. Such an argument says more about our national unease with facts. Pakistan today is really not short of talent. It is short of jobs. With a huge population and a modest, consumption-heavy economy, the country carries a significant surplus of employable people — both in the skilled and unskilled categories — for whom the domestic market offers limited absorption, if any at all.

A lot of doctors, engineers, pharmacists, information technology graduates, accountants, technicians and trained tradespeople emerge from universities and colleges every year, only to encounter a stagnant industry, frozen public hiring, weak private investment, and an informal sector that is incapable of using their skills productively.

This is not conjecture. Labour force data consistently shows that unemployment is higher among the educated than among the unskilled. In other words, education in Pakistan increasingly produces cap-ability without opportunity. Remittances continue to be the economic backbone we rarely acknowledge.

Against such a backdrop, it is puzzling that overseas employment is still framed as a ‘national embarrassment’ rather than a strategic necessity. Remittances, now approaching $40 billion annually, consti-tute Pakistan’s single largest and most stable source of foreign exchange, sur-passing exports, aid or foreign direct investment. They cushion the balance of payments, stabilise household incomes and indirectly support millions of dependents.

At a time when Pakistan faces chronic economic maladies, it is neither realistic nor responsible to dismiss labour export as a policy failure. With coherent planning, bilateral labour agreements and proper skills certification, Pakistan could raise annual remittances to $60 billion, a shift that would materially improve macro-economic stability without any additional borrowing.

Few countries apologise for exporting labour. The Philippines, India and Bangladesh have institutionalised such an export. South Korea once did the same. Migration, when structured, is not brain drain. It is income diversification and skills circulation. Those who oppose labour export rarely address a simple question: what is the alternative for surplus workers today? Advising skilled youth to ‘stay and struggle’ without providing platforms for employment is neither patriotic nor humane. Sending workers abroad does not hollow out the state.

On the contrary, it allows citizens to earn foreign exchange, support families at home, and acquire skills and exposure, and return, when they do, with capital, experience and broader social outlooks.

Criticism of governments is legitimate. But criticism that ignores labour market realities risks misleading the public rather than informing it. Pakistan effectively faces a binary choice: either it deploys its surplus human capital globally, or it leaves millions underemployed, frustrated and economically inactive at home.

A country with over one million surplus employable individuals cannot afford to avoid integrating overseas employment into its national economic strategy. This is not a sign of weakness. It is a recognition of constraints and an attempt to convert them into advantage.

The real failure would be to pretend that dignity lies in unemployment, or that national pride is enhanced by idle talent. People are Pakistan’s most valuable resource. Using that resource intelligently is not surrender; it is very much statecraft.

Dr Ashraf Chohan
London, UK

Published in Dawn, February 26th, 2026