A longer term strategic vision is the key to a large and vibrant Asian market.
Few policy decisions in Pakistan have been subjected to as much rigorous analysis and public debate as liberalising trade with India. Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party government launched the discourse in 1996 with a major report that concluded that gainers (consumers, farmers, most manufacturers and the government as revenue collector) would far outweigh the losers (some manufacturers) and had strongly recommended normalisation of trade. That robust conclusion has been corroborated subsequently by several studies.
And yet it has taken 16 long years to grant the Most Favoured Nation status to India. This is because the debate is informed mainly by a cost-benefit analysis of gainers and losers in the short term, and a national frame without the context of a strategic regional vision. Such a vision, commonly shared by India and Pakistan, is critical to avoid the inevitable pitfalls that could threaten India-Pakistan trade in the future.
Immediately following the Partition in 1947, India was Pakistan's most important trading partner accounting for half of Pakistan's exports (agricultural produce and minerals) and 32 per cent of imports (mainly manufactured goods).
Difficulties surfaced as early as 1949 for primarily economic management reasons. Pakistan did not match India's decision of devaluing the currency which resulted in a reduction of Pakistan's exports to India and a surge of imports. In the brave old world of quantitative interventions and obsession with bilateral trade balances, Pakistan placed restrictions on imports from India and trade fell dramatically.
Jingoistic dimension
India-Pakistan bilateral trade never really recovered from that early jolt. The wars of 1965 and 1971 and the Kashmir revolt in the 1990s introduced a jingoistic dimension to the debate. The compelling economic argument for resumption of trade was put to the impossible test of “improvement in ground realities”.
It would be a mistake, however, to overlook the economic underpinnings of the reservations over liberalising trade with India. The early restriction on imports of Indian manufactured goods was an important element of the import substituting industrialisation strategy that created a strong industrial base in Pakistan. For three decades, Pakistan's manufacturing sector grew at double digits and helped spur an average annual GDP growth of over 6 per cent.
With sustained high GDP growth, young and increasingly assertive industrial entrepreneurs and rapidly improving infrastructure financed by generous multi-lateral assistance, Pakistan was seen as the poster child of successful economic development. India, in contrast, was mired in the 3 per cent “Hindu” growth rate, its entrepreneurs blunted by stifling state regulation and crumbling infrastructure.
Trade with India is being liberalised in a setting different from those heady days. Pakistan's economy has experienced sharp boom and bust cycles in the last 20 years while India's has been on a steadier upward growth trajectory. India's manufacturing, while not as competitive as China's, is beginning to strengthen. Pakistan's manufacturing, on the other hand, has not built on the earlier momentum and is losing ground internationally. The liberal trade regime with China has flooded the local market, edging out small and medium enterprises that had previously enjoyed protected local niches.
The apprehension of industry in Pakistan is that another dose of trade liberalisation with yet another large economy, where industry enjoys the advantage of scale, will erode profitability further. While China's “friendly fire” has been accepted grudgingly for geo-political reasons, the threatened industry will argue that there is no advantage in losing market share to the “enemy”.
Thus bilateral trade imbalance, rapid loss of market share and associated loss of employment in the affected industry will be watched carefully in Pakistan and the reaction will be loud and shrill. The losers, more visible, better organised, will drown out the amorphous, less visible, gainers. The trajectory of trade liberalisation with India is thus likely to be jagged.
How do we avoid the inevitable pitfalls of India-Pakistan trade liberalisation that threaten quick and sharp reversals? The answer lies in both Pakistan and India lifting up their game to subject the bilateral trade relationship to a longer term strategic cost-benefit analysis than one that is tactical and myopic. Pakistan has to see trade liberalisation with India and China as part of a longer term economic growth and nation building strategy. For sustained improvement in living standards, Pakistan needs an economic growth of 7-8 per cent per annum for three decades or more. Furthermore, given the complex ethnic mix, economic growth has to be regionally balanced. Such a growth strategy has to be built on advantages rooted in history and geography.
The region that now constitutes Pakistan was a contiguous “nation” way back in the era of the Indus Valley Civilisation and then patchily and episodically under the Taxila Buddhist kingdoms, the early central Asian Muslim slave fiefdoms and then most recently under the Sikhs. And yet, the region has had a strong influence on South Asian culture and identity.
This is because the three principal regions of modern day Pakistan, Peshawar, Lahore and Upper Sind were connectors of the lands to their West and North — Iran, Central Asia and China — and those to the East — India — and as such became centres of trade, commerce and culture. This flourishing activity made them growth nodes that brought prosperity to their surrounding regions.
Anglo-Russian rivalry and the long Chinese slumber cut off the land routes and markets to the West and the North, and Pakistan-India disputes truncated the routes to the East. Independent Pakistan invested heavily in infrastructure and trade along the North-South corridor via Karachi replaced trade across land borders. For the first time in history, Pakistan's three historical regional centres achieved a high degree of connectivity defining an Indus Basin market across the length of modern day Pakistan.
The Indus Basin market that spurred growth rates of 6 per cent or more for several decades has now run its course. Pakistan thus has to create a new “vent” for long-term sustained economic growth that is regionally balanced. This requires reverting to geography and history.
Pakistan lies at the heart of a rapidly transforming world around its land borders. To the North and East are the skills and savings-rich economies of China and India with a combined population of over 2 billion growing at 8 per cent or more. To the West are resource rich Central Asia, Iran and the Persian Gulf states. Reopening the historical East-West-North trade routes and linking them with a strong North-South corridor will make Pakistan the trade hub of South Asia. And trade hubs, that lower cost of transporting materials and people, are precursors of industrial hubs that produce sustained economic growth.
This is the strategic vision that should guide Pakistan's trade relations with all its neighbours, including India, and not the short-term cost-benefit analysis of the impact of liberalisation on some niche manufacturers.
And how should India lift up its game? All paths to economic development and prosperity do not have to be routed through sweat shops catering to affluent western consumers. A large and vibrant Asian regional market would constitute a significant and, given demographic shifts, growing part of global demand for products. India's long-term strategic interest is to help create that Asian market. That, in turn, requires strengthening Pakistan to be an effective regional hub that connects the Asia-wide market.
Full-fledged ties
A successful management of the new liberalised India-Pakistan trade regime to scale it up to a full-fledged economic relationship will be key. In the short term, it may well mean exercising voluntary restraint on exports that hurt small and medium-sized Pakistani manufacturers. It would also require focussing on export of machinery and technology to Pakistani firms that currently import these at high cost from more expensive developed country sources.
Joint ventures and other investment strategies would need to be developed to set up production units for the Asia-wide market. Visa regime will have to be liberalised and travel facilitated so that small entrepreneurs develop cross-border business linkages and gains from liberalisation are shared more widely.
Above all, collective punishment as a policy option in dealing with Pakistan will have to be eschewed. Imposing sanctions on people already hurting from barbaric acts of terrorism is counter-productive in realising the vision of a prosperous and peaceful Asian economic region.
(Ijaz Nabi is Visiting Faculty, Lahore University of Management Sciences.)
Keywords: India, Pakistan, bilateral ties, Indo-Pak trade game, Pakistan policy decisions




This article left me amused. Amused at the analysis, thought-process, facts based writing. But I was yet to read comments. And they left me wondering that we still have sober readers interested in discussion and debates and not like other leading news daily websites, where people even use foul language. Please keep it up, I may not yet contribute to the debates but for sure would.
No matter how friendly India becomes to out brotherly neighbour Pakistan, things will hardly change as proved from all the behaviour from Pakistan with numerous military misadventures from 1947, numerous terrorist attacks, support to terror groups and perpetrators of criminal acts in India like Dawood Ibrahim, 26/11 master mind Saeed etc. and supporting to all terror activities in J&K. Also there seems to be no inclination to give any weight to Indian concern on such matters.
Now the increased trade, even though welcome, but may likely result in facilitating more of dubious activities with terror related items. India has never, never has been aggressor against Pakistan, even though it has defended successfully against all attacks from other side.
A very well written article that succinctly dwells on the "strategic location of Pakistan". It very well addresses the regional trade imperatives and is successful in taking forward the discourse on economic realities of present times. However, I was disappointed to read the ensuing comments mainly coming from across the border. More so,when India is the world leader in procurement of military armament (swooping US$ 100b.How does it justify to do so particularly when both countries have been extremely critical and wary of each other's annual increase in defence spending till now. What choice does this leave for Pakistan? Can someone explain how we can have coexisting policies of peace/regional economic harmony and arms race. Also, how can India be critical of Pakistan's internal situation when in addition to occupied Kashmir, one third of its own states are Maoist controlled? Please accept, Pakistan is a reality, it is in crisis but it will come out of it soon.
Pakistan must realise that its salvation lies in pragmatic and peaceful reconnect with its bigger and better part India. The border must be opened up as part of this process to allow for trade and people to people contacts. Also student exchanges and teaching exchanges must be encouraged with a view to this great goal to be realised once the islamic demon has been exorcised in pakistan. We are all children of Hind
I had expected there would have been some more information about the
anglo-russian rivalry and its effect on pakistan's trade relations.And
then ofcourse the situation can only be resolved by leaving behind the
non-trivial issues and furthering the economic development of both
countries.
Good brief overview by Mr. Nabi on the trade history of India and
Pakistan.
But i personally believe that these steps to increase the cross border
trade between the duo countries are looking promising only theoretically
and on the ground of reality, these steps are hard to implement
especially in between the countries like India and Pakistan.
Dr Ijaz Nabi's article is excellent and thoughtful. It is a shame that India and Pakistan remain as enemies even after 60 years of partition. Problems: (1) Textile industry constitutes large proportions of industries of both these countries. (2) Almost exclusive dependence on trucks for transport, though both these countries must import most of their required quantities of petroleum. (3) Presence of only single track railroad connections between Amritsar and Lahore, Firozepur and Kasur, and Khokrapar (though the meter gauge stands to be converted to broad gauge). Those connecting railroads must have double lines and electric tractions. Indian and Pakistani locomotives and wagons need not be exchanged at the border.
Pakistan could import tea and chemicals including fertilizers from India, and India could import sports goods from Sialkote and surgical instruments from Wazirabad.
I wonder if the Indians and Pakistanis deserve passports and vias for traveling between their countries.
"Kashmir revolt in the 1990s"... ha ...?
This is result of distortion of history in Pakistan's education system
.
This was not revolt but mercenaries backed by ISI waging pseudo war
with India .Better author should listen to Najam Sethis analysis of
this war .
Why India want to help Pakistan ? Because we do not want stone aged
civilization in our front door who have hobbies to send Mujaheddin in
the land .We want you people to grow with us and flourish by leaving
stone age , tribal Jihadist agenda !
When did it become a Kashmir revolt? It was islamic fundamentalism. Period.
I am sure you wouldn't say "godhra revolt". Nor would I. You got to be kidding.
With all due respect, I would contend that there's but little ground for optimism. Business cannot be as normal in an environment of violent extremism, including cross-border terrorism. Let us first observe the unfolding of events in Pakistan vis-a-vis their army and intelligence services. If these aren't reigned in, and instead reign supreme, we can probably kiss this MFN status goodbye.
Excellent article with such detailed information on Indo-Pak trade
market. It is time politicians on both the sides of border acknowledge
the fact and liberalize the trade between two countries. It is pure
greed, ineptitude and spineless governance of the upper echelons in
Pakistan impoverishing their economy. Unless the politicians act on it,
such improvident politics will only hinder the growth of economy.
@ Gopal Vaidya: Lets not nit-pick.
Ijaz Nabi's succinct description of what was the silk route ought
to be revived undoubtedly. Post 1490's the Silk Route ebbed away
following Vasco da Gama's alternative (sea) routes for spice and
consequently domination by Europeans/USA of all and everything to
present day.
The benefactors of the New Silk Route must base all dealings
between countries and peoples are based on fairness and equality
and not the exclusivity of religion or ethnicity.
The West should not worry of exclusion this time around. The USA
must stop enjoining but instead, join the rest of humankind as
equals.
From a distant outsider's point of view, it would be wonderful if India and Pakistan could gradually build up co-operation through a wide range of mutually-beneficial projects, like, as Mr Balakrishnan pointed out above, China and Taiwan. There would be so many benefits from much freer interaction East-West between Iran-Pakistan-India, and North-South, between Central Asia-Afghanistan-Pakistan. Pakistan certainly could be in the box seat to benefit from those developments throughout this century and beyond.
Yes, there are many political issues to resolve, but it would be great to see small beginnings on economic and infrastructural co-operation, and serious and sincere attention paid to those issues as signs of good intentions.
"India's long-term strategic interest is to help create that Asian market."
This statement is just offered without anything to back it up. The author's contention is that lowering the reliance on affluent western customers would be very beneficial to India. While this is undeniable, how does it justify the costs of what India is being asked to do - which is to trust a neighbour that has historically proven itself unworthy of that trust?
You can't have two nations trading amicably in the atmosphere of mistrust today, and that mistrust has largely been created and is sustained by Pakistan's firm commitment to protecting terrorist groups that attack India.
It is distressing to hear Dr Ijaz Nabi talk about "Kashmir revolt" in the 1990s. This characterization completely ignores how Pakistani security forces exported terror into India through Islamic fundamentalism and by utilizing the infra-structure that was created and left over from the war with the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The article is very appropriate in scrutinizing the cost-benifit
analysis rather than the tactical mileage of the Indo-Pak trade
benefits. India has always been a willing partner in the upliftment of
Pakistan. But, the wars have always been waged from the opposite side
and if Pakistan wishes to have a sustained economic prosperity, it
should restrain internal law and order first and stop being a docile
sidekick of the super powers. After all trust is the only prerequisite
for economic co-operation and sustaining it.
May be we can take a leaf out of the Downunder.Australia and Newzealand have open border system allowing citizens of both sides to contribute in economic development of either sides.Expecting this with Indo Pak would be too much but atleast an amicable atmosphere can be created so that the boom in the economy can be further enhanced.
An excellent analysis. I particularly like the phrase "All paths to
economic development and prosperity do not have to be routed through
sweat shops catering to affluent western consumers" It is about time leaders of Pakistan and India look past petty issues and grasp the chance for historical transformation of the region. Mainland China and Taiwan are still supposed to be at war but do thriving trade and encourage investment. In a formal sense relations between India and Pakistan are nowhere as fraught and they should do better.
Please Email the Editor