Pakistan can build nuclear reactors instead. They have the technology.
Granted, in the long run coal is neither a healthy, environmentally friendly or sustainable option but in the short term it may be one of the few viable options.
Pakistan can build the bomb, and the reactors for high grade Pu. That doesn't mean they can make a thermal reactor which has many different and difficult challenges. The metallurgy to make a high pressure reactor vessel for 500 MW is quite different from making a quickly refueled open pool reactor.
In fact, most western countries' reactor designs are derived from US licenses.
Two additional plants at 1.1 GW each slated to add to the grid by 2021/2.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant
Edit:correction.
Or is this a comment about subcontinental international politics?
When someone says "nuclear" many unthinking people with votes think "That's bad they could blow me up or polute all the things" and then shut off their brain to rational responses.
Because they have votes the politicians "Here" take action. If "Here" is Pakistan that means fewer plants in this case. If "Here" is the USA it means strained relations with Pakistan and perhaps even some public condemnation and minor sanctions.