Pakistan Should Hope For the Best and Prepare For the Worst With India

[Riaz Haq]

Deadly skirmishes started between Indian and Pakistani forces along LoC in the disputed territory of Kashmir in early January 2013, barely weeks after Pakistan Army doctrine acknowledged domestic militancy as the biggest threat to national security.

Here's how Najam Sethi, a well-known Pakistani peacenik and a strong advocate of India-Pakistan friendship, described the events in his Friday Times editorial titled "Don't derail Indo-Pak relations":

"It is established that when the Indian army recently started to build
some bunkers in Charanda in Haji Pir Sector of the LoC, it violated an
agreement in 2005 not to change the status quo. This provoked the
Pakistanis to shell Indian positions in a bid to stop the construction
of the bunkers. The Indian commander of 161 Brigade in the area
countered on January 6th by ordering a raid across the LoC to silence
the troublesome Pakistani post. One Pakistani soldier was killed,
provoking a protest by Pakistan's DGMO on 7th Jan, followed by a
Pakistani counter attack across the LoC on Jan 8th in which two Indian
soldiers were killed. At that stage, on Jan 9th, the Indian media
erupted with allegations of a "beheading" of one Indian soldier and
"castration" and "mutilation" of the other by the Pakistanis. This was
an unprecedented act of savagery, said the Indian media, that called for
reprisals. The initial reaction of the Indian foreign and defence
ministers was measured and cautious no less than that of the spokesmen
of the Indian army. But this soon gave way under media pressure,
prompting both to become hawkish."

Barkha Dutt, a hawkish TV anchor at NDTV, led the Indian media charge against Pakistan by accusing Pakistani military of "savagery" and "barbarism". Indian prime minister talked of "no business as usual", and Indian Army chief told his "commanders to be aggressive and offensive" and the Indian Air Force chief threatened to  use "other options". Pakistan's offer to have the incidents independently investigated by the United Nations was rejected.

All the talk of "Aman Ki Asha" went out the window when Pakistani hockey players were unceremoniously ejected from India as the right-wing Hindu organizations were aided and abetted by the hawkish anti-Pakistan  Indian media. Hindu Nationalist BJP leader Sushma Swaraj demanded "ten Pakistani heads for one Indian head".

Soon, Barkha Dutt's phony outrage and Sushma Swaraj's bloodthirsty rhetoric about "beheading" were exposed by a quick Google search by Najam Sethi. Sethi found an article in a Nepalese publication Himal in which Barkha described how she was shown a severed head of a Pakistani as war trophy by an Indian Army officer in Kargil in 1999. Here's what she wrote in the article titled "Confessions of a war reporter":

"I had to look three times to make sure I was seeing right. Balanced
on one knee, in a tiny alley behind the army’s administrative offices, I
was peering through a hole in a corrugated tin sheet. At first glance,
all I could see were some leaves. I looked harder and amidst all the
green, there was a hint of black – it looked like a moustache. “Look
again,” said the army colonel, in a tone that betrayed suppressed
excitement. This time, I finally saw.

It was a head, the
disembodied face of a slain soldier nailed onto a tree. “The boys got it
as a gift for the brigade,” said the colonel, softly, but proudly.
Before I could react, the show was over. A faded gunny bag appeared from
nowhere, shrouded the soldier’s face, the brown of the bag now merging
indistinguishably with the green of the leaves. Minutes later, we walked
past the same tree where the three soldiers who had earlier unveiled
the victory trophy were standing. From the corner of his eye, the
colonel exchanged a look of shard achievement, and we moved on. We were
firmly in the war zone."


Further research by Shivam Vu published in India Today found that reports of beheading of soldiers are not "unprecedented". Here's an excerpt from Shivam Vu's piece titled "Cheap Logomachy" :
 
"Buried inside a report by Shishir Gupta in the Hindustan Times
was the claim that two Indian soldiers were beheaded in July 2011 and
“three months later, heads of three Pakistani soldiers went missing,
with Islamabad lodging a protest with New Delhi.” Don’t you love it that
while Indian soldiers are beheaded, Pakistani soldiers’ heads go
“missing”—as though they detach themselves from the bodies of the
soldiers and just disappear? The report also claimed that similar
beheadings (of Indian soldiers) and heads going missing (of Pakistanis)
had taken place in 2000, 2003 and 2007. When Admiral Lakshminarayan
Ramdas (retd), former chief of the Indian navy, tried to say on Barkha Dutt’s show on NDTV
that the Indian army has also beheaded Pakistani soldiers, he was cut
short by Dutt. But in 2001, Dutt had herself written that she had seen a head displayed as a war trophy
by the Indian army during the Kargil war in 1999. Two other journalists
were not shy of recalling similar experiences: Sankarshan Thakur of The Telegraph (on his website) and Harinder Baweja of the Hindustan Times on Twitter.


If these incidents happen so often, why did anonymous sources in the
Indian army decide to use the defence correspondents to make it seem
like an unprecedented provocation from Pakistan? There is little doubt
that the beheading of a soldier, and the taking away of his head as a
war trophy is sickening and outrageous and every such incident should
come to light. But it should also remind us of the brutalities of war,
and that the LoC is a ceasefire line where hostilities have merely been
halted until the next battle; that the two armies stand eye-to-eye there
because of the Kashmir dispute; that Jammu and Kashmir is not a settled
question. Such thoughts are apparently anti-national. And bad for TRPs."

Indian media, military and politicians have a history of whipping up anti-Pakistan frenzy on many occasions in the past. Many Indians suffer from what Sashi Tharoor has aptly described as India's "Israel Envy".  The Indian hawks must clearly understand that their miscalculations can lead to devastation in the entire South Asia region.

These recent events and the warmongering response by the Indian govt, politicians and media are a reminder that Pakistan can not afford to become complacent about peace with India. Pakistanis should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Here's a video discussion on the subject:


Related Links:

Haq's Musings

India's Israel Envy

India-Pakistan Cricket Diplomacy

Indians Share "Eye-opener" Stories of Pakistan

India-Pakistan Military Balance

Can India "Do a Lebanon" in Pakistan?

Indian Media Manufacturing Consent

[Riaz Haq]

Here's a Daily Times report on Pakistan's "Saffron Bandit" military exercise:

ISLAMABAD: The armed forces of Pakistan are prepared to defend country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, said Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Kahlid Shamim Wynne on Thursday.

The CJCSC was visiting the ongoing ‘Exercise Saffron Bandit 2012-13’ at an operational base of the Pakistan Air Force. Chief of Air Staff Tahir Rafique Butt also participated in the exercise.

General Wynne said the prevailing complex global geo-political environment and regional situation is not only unique but also more challenging, since Pakistan faces both internal and external threats. “Readiness and war preparedness have attained enhanced significance in the current scenario. PAF is a potent and frontline element of the national security and, through the highest levels of professionalism, it will always come up to the expectations of the nation,” he said

The CJCSC also flew in an AEW&C Aircraft to observe the complexities of aerial warfare and the professional handling and employment of integrated air and ground combat elements by the aircrew.

While interacting with the participants after flying the mission, General Wynne said the Exercise Saffron Bandit serves well for enhancing war preparedness in the hi-tech scenario of aerial warfare. “It is heartening to see PAF stepping into the future with its newly acquired capabilities and emerging concepts of employment.”

Earlier, on arrival the CJCSC was received by Air Chief Marshal Tahir Rafique Butt. He was given a comprehensive briefing on the Exercise Saffron Bandit 2012-13.

Exercise Saffron Bandit is a triennial command level exercise conducted in PAF since 1994. A sequel of five exercises has been conducted so far while sixth exercise is in progress. This time where modern capabilities of PAF are operating under one umbrella for the first time, Pak Army Aviation and Army Air Defence are also deployed for undertaking the exercise.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\01\25\story_25-1-2013_pg7_12

[Riaz Haq]

Here's NY Times' blog on Pak authors participation of Jaipur Literature Festival:

JAIPUR, Rajasthan — Amid much controversy, the Jaipur Literature Festival opened with a large selection of Pakistani writers on Thursday.

The first day of the five-day festival featured the authors Jamil Ahmad, whose novel “The Wandering Falcon” was short listed for the Man Asian Literary Prize in 2011, M.A. Farooqi, whose novel “Between Clay and Dust” was long listed for the 2012 Man Asian Literary Prize and DSC Prize 2012, and Nadeem Aslam whose works “Season of the Rainbirds” and “Maps for Lost Lovers” have received many awards.

On stage in two different sessions, the authors held a lively discussion about their recent books, their craft and what influenced their worldviews.

But it wasn’t easy to get them here.

In the days leading up to the festival, Suman Sharma, the national opposition Bhartiya Janata Party state vice president for Rajasthan, tried to block their entry. “Looking at the present Indo-Pak relations, it is unacceptable to allow Pakistani writers here as guests,” he said, threatening to keep them out of the state. The right-wing Hindu group RSS said that it was “not in the country’s interest at the moment,” to have guests from Pakistan.

Their statements came after a recent skirmish across the contested Line of Control border that India and Pakistan share in Kashmir.

While the chief minister of Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, said on Thursday that the visit of Pakistani authors to the Jaipur Literary Festival should not be “politicized”, the state government denied two Pakistani diplomats based in New Delhi permission to attend the festival. The two diplomats, Manzoor Memon, a press councillor, and the minister of trade Naeem Anwar, were not given any reason for the denial.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/in-jaipur-a-strong-showin...

[Riaz Haq]

Here's Economic Times on Indian Commerce Minister wanting India-Pak economic ties:

AGRA: Against the backdrop of chill in India-Pakistan relations, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma has pressed for the need for building confidence and trust particularly in the economic field, saying there is no alternative.

"India is of this considered view that there is no alternative way other than building an atmosphere of confidence and trust (to strengthen ties between India and Pakistan)...And for that the only way is the economic partnership," Sharma said at the CII's Global Partnership Summit here last evening.

The session was on "South Asia Economic Integration: On a New path of progress and Hope".

The statement come amidst chill in bilateral relations triggered by the beheading of an Indian soldier by Pakistani troops on Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir on January 8.

After permitting FDI from Pakistan, he said India in the process of allowing its banks open branches in India.

Sharma asked the Pakistani delegations attending the session to tell their government to move forward.

"I know we have friends from Pakistan in the audience here. Please go back and remindBSE 5.00 % them what we discussed in last February, where we are and not to allow anything which actually holds this region back," he said.

Although Pakistan's Trade Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim could not make it to this summit due to some internal compulsions, a small delegation attended it.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/econ...

[Riaz Haq]

Here's an excerpt from a Daily Times Op Ed by Saad Hafiz on recent India-Pakistan flareup:

The problem of the organisational relationship between a larger and smaller power plays a role in the confrontation. India is frustrated that in its relationship with Pakistan, its overwhelming military and economic superiority is not counting for much. Pakistan on the other hand, continues its obsessive pursuit of ‘parity’ with India and a pathological refusal to accept any status of inferiority. In the words of the South-Asia scholar Stephen Cohen: “One of the most important puzzles of India-Pakistan relations is not why the smaller Pakistan feels encircled and threatened, but why the larger India does. It would seem that India, seven times more populous than Pakistan and five times its size, and which defeated Pakistan in 1971, would feel more secure. This has not been the case and Pakistan remains deeply embedded in Indian thinking. There are historical, strategic, ideological, and domestic reasons why Pakistan remains the central obsession of much of the Indian strategic community, just as India remains Pakistan’s.”

There are powerful hardliners in the two countries with sizeable constituencies of their own, dogmatically committed to the policy of enmity. These constituencies advocate retrogressive and religion-based policies at home and hostile relations across the borders. They have over time refined a mindset that prompts their supporters to talk of teaching each other a lesson. Both governments should have taken steps to curb and contain these constituencies. Neither government has so far demonstrated any desire to do so. Both governments should recognise that the resolution of outstanding issues rests squarely on them. People-to-people contacts can create a favourable climate, but they cannot by themselves pave the way for peace.
-----
If the examples of the countries that have established durable peace after prolonged confrontation are any guide, a willingness to concede ground is critical to establishing peace. The rhetoric of hollow nationalism without a willingness to honourably concede substantial ground is not adequate for peace-making. People have to be psychologically prepared that durable peace is not achievable without substantial concessions. They have to be made aware that the concessions made would be in the long-term interest of the two countries. Until this is done, a sound basis for trust and conflict-resolution cannot be created.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\02\03\story_3-2-2013_pg3_3

[Riaz Haq]

Talking about "doing a Reagan", here's NY Times' Op Ed about India-China race:

As recently as 2006, when I first visited India and China, the economic race was on, with heavy bets being placed on which one would win the developing world sweepstakes.

Many Westerners fervently hoped that a democratic country would triumph economically over an autocratic regime.

Now the contest is emphatically over. China has lunged into the 21st century, while India is still lurching toward it.

That’s evident not just in columns of dry statistics but in the rhythm and sensibility of each country. While China often seems to eradicate its past as it single-mindedly constructs its future, India nibbles more judiciously at its complex history.

Visits to crowded Indian urban centers unleash sensory assaults: colorful dress and lilting chatter provide a backdrop to every manner of commerce, from small shops to peddlers to beggars. That makes for engaging tourism, but not the fastest economic development. In contrast to China’s full-throated, monochromatic embrace of large-scale manufacturing, India more closely resembles a nation of shopkeepers.

To be sure, India has achieved enviable success in business services, like the glistening call centers in Bangalore and elsewhere. But in the global jousting for manufacturing jobs, India does not get its share.

Now, after years of rocketing growth, China’s gross domestic product per capita of $9,146 is more than twice India’s. And its economy grew by 7.7 percent in 2012, while India expanded at a (hardly shabby) 5.3 percent rate.
--------
India’s rigid social structure limits intergenerational economic mobility and fosters acceptance of vast wealth disparities. In Mumbai, where more than half the population lives in slums often devoid of electricity or running water, Mukesh Ambani spent a reported $1 billion to construct a 27-story home in a residential neighborhood.

Don’t get me wrong — I am hardly advocating totalitarian government. But we need to recognize that success for developing countries is about more than free elections.

While India may not have the same “eye on the prize” so evident in China, it should finish a respectable second in the developing world sweepstakes. It just won’t beat China.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/india-is-losing-the...

[Riaz Haq]

Here's NY Times blog post by Huma Yusuf on conspiracy theories in Pakistan:

As the security situation in Pakistan continues to deteriorate, trading conspiracy theories has become the new national pastime. Nothing is more popular on the airwaves, at dinner parties or around tea stalls than to speculate, especially about American activities on Pakistani soil.

According to many Pakistanis, the C.I.A. used a mysterious technology to cause the devastating floods that affected 20 million people in 2010. Washington had the teenage champion for girls’ education, Malala Yousafzai, shot as part of a campaign to demonize the Pakistani Taliban and win public support for American drone strikes against them. The terrorists who strike Pakistani targets are non-Muslim “foreign agents.” Osama bin Laden was an American operative.

The Pakistani penchant for conspiracy theories results from decades of military rule, during which the army controlled the media and the shadowy Inter-Services Intelligence agency controlled much of everything else. The lack of transparency and scarcity of information during subsequent democratic rule has further fueled rumors.

Mostly, however, conspiracy theories persist because many turn out to be true.

A few years ago, Pakistan’s independent media denounced the presence in Pakistan of C.I.A. agents and private security firms like Blackwater. While U.S. and Pakistani government officials denied any such infiltration, private television channels broadcast footage of the homes of Westerners, allegedly Blackwater agents. One right-wing newspaper, The Nation, even named one Wall Street Journal correspondent as a C.I.A. spy, forcing him to leave the country.

For a time liberal Pakistanis condemned this as a witch hunt and decried poor journalistic ethics. But soon the international media disclosed that Blackwater was in fact operating in Pakistan at an airbase in Baluchistan used by the C.I.A.

Then it was revealed that the American citizen who shot and killed two Pakistanis in Lahore in January 2011 — an American diplomat, the U.S. government claimed initially — turned out to be a C.I.A. agent, just as many conspiracy theorists had surmised.

And what about those U.S. drone strikes targeting militants in Pakistan’s tribal belt? It turns out those suspicious Pakistanis were right to imagine that their own government was complicit. That became clear when, in November 2011, to protest a NATO airstrike that killed Pakistani soldiers near the border with Afghanistan, the Pakistani government ordered the C.I.A. to leave the Shamsi airbase in Baluchistan, from where the drone attacks were being launched.

Other rumors concern India, Pakistan’s long-time rival. Zaid Hamid, a jihadist-turned-policy analyst, alleges that the Indian spy agency R.A.W. funds and arms the Pakistani Taliban. Some Pakistani officials accuse New Delhi of facilitating the separatist insurgency in Baluchistan.

This paranoia was confirmed this week by Chuck Hagel, the new U.S. secretary of defense. A video clip from 2011 that circulated during his confirmation hearings shows Hagel claiming that India uses Afghanistan as a “second front” against Pakistan and “has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border.”

The allegation outraged the Indian government and undermined liberal Pakistanis who believe India wants a stable Pakistan and support improved bilateral ties. Meanwhile, of course, it validated those conspiracy mongers who have long warned that India wants to culturally subsume, colonize or destroy Pakistan.

http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/the-truthers-of-pakistan/

[Riaz Haq]

Here's Paul Krugman's Op Ed in NY Times on 10th anniversary of Iraq war:

So did our political elite and our news media learn from this experience? It sure doesn’t look like it.

The really striking thing, during the run-up to the war, was the illusion of consensus. To this day, pundits who got it wrong excuse themselves on the grounds that “everyone” thought that there was a solid case for war. Of course, they acknowledge, there were war opponents — but they were out of the mainstream.

The trouble with this argument is that it was and is circular: support for the war became part of the definition of what it meant to hold a mainstream opinion. Anyone who dissented, no matter how qualified, was ipso facto labeled as unworthy of consideration. This was true in political circles; it was equally true of much of the press, which effectively took sides and joined the war party.

CNN’s Howard Kurtz, who was at The Washington Post at the time, recently wrote about how this process worked, how skeptical reporting, no matter how solid, was discouraged and rejected. “Pieces questioning the evidence or rationale for war,” he wrote, “were frequently buried, minimized or spiked.”

Closely associated with this taking of sides was an exaggerated and inappropriate reverence for authority. Only people in positions of power were considered worthy of respect. Mr. Kurtz tells us, for example, that The Post killed a piece on war doubts by its own senior defense reporter on the grounds that it relied on retired military officials and outside experts — “in other words, those with sufficient independence to question the rationale for war.”

All in all, it was an object lesson in the dangers of groupthink, a demonstration of how important it is to listen to skeptical voices and separate reporting from advocacy. But as I said, it’s a lesson that doesn’t seem to have been learned. Consider, as evidence, the deficit obsession that has dominated our political scene for the past three years.

Now, I don’t want to push the analogy too far. Bad economic policy isn’t the moral equivalent of a war fought on false pretenses, and while the predictions of deficit scolds have been wrong time and again, there hasn’t been any development either as decisive or as shocking as the complete failure to find weapons of mass destruction. Best of all, these days dissenters don’t operate in the atmosphere of menace, the sense that raising doubts could have devastating personal and career consequences, that was so pervasive in 2002 and 2003. (Remember the hate campaign against the Dixie Chicks?)

But now as then we have the illusion of consensus, an illusion based on a process in which anyone questioning the preferred narrative is immediately marginalized, no matter how strong his or her credentials. And now as then the press often seems to have taken sides. It has been especially striking how often questionable assertions are reported as fact. How many times, for example, have you seen news articles simply asserting that the United States has a “debt crisis,” even though many economists would argue that it faces no such thing?

In fact, in some ways the line between news and opinion has been even more blurred on fiscal issues than it was in the march to war. As The Post’s Ezra Klein noted last month, it seems that “the rules of reportorial neutrality don’t apply when it comes to the deficit.”

What we should have learned from the Iraq debacle was that you should always be skeptical and that you should never rely on supposed authority. If you hear that “everyone” supports a policy, whether it’s a war of choice or fiscal austerity, you should ask whether “everyone” has been defined to exclude anyone expressing a different opinion. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/krugman-marches-of-folly....

[Riaz Haq]

Israeli Ambassador Mark Sofer in 08 said Israel helped India in turning around the situation in Kargil War by providing the much needed imagery of Pakistani army positions . ’We do have a defence relationship with India, which is no secret. What is secret is what the defence relationship is ? And with all due respeThis led to embassy level relations between India and Israel in 1992 . Everyone was startled when Israeli Ambassador Mark Sofer to an interview in 2008 said that Israel helped India in turning around the situation in Kargil War . Israel helped Indian Army by providing the much needed imagery of Pakistani army positions . ’We do have a defence relationship with India, which is no secret. What is secret is what the defence relationship is ? And with all due respect, the secret part will remain secret.” said Mark Sofer in an interview to Outlook Magazine.ct, the secret part will remain secret.” said Mark Sofer in an interview to Outlook Magazine.

Israel provided India with Laser Guidance Kits for dumb bombs (Mark 82, 83 etc.) as well as some Laser guided bombs. These kits were the reason that India could bomb Pakistan's major logistics base located on a very sharp ridge on the mountains. This attack with precision weapons significantly weekend Pakistan's military position Kargil. Later US followed with sale of similar equipment to India.

[Riaz Haq]

Here's a Haaretz story on an Israeli's impressions of India:

...From the perspective of a metropolis of 17 million people, Israel looks like a small, distant country with peculiar, almost trivial problems. When reasonably decent drinking water for the masses and clean air to breathe are goals beyond reach, the right of return or Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets seem to be almost theoretical issues. It’s also a question of one’s angle of observation: For the Indians there is no Middle East, only “western Asia.”

----

Since full diplomatic relations between Israel and India were established in 1992, the two have gradually but significantly moved closer together – primarily on the basis of growing economic trade, centering around sales by Israel’s defense industry to India.
-------------
India is now the No. 1 export target of Israel’s defense industries. The two countries. Both India and Israel avoid revealing details about the scale and nature of their security trade. However, in 2012 Israel’s Defense Ministry announced that the country’s total defense exports stood at $7 billion annually. India’s share of that is probably between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. And the potential for growth exists.
--------------
A partial list of the munitions that India has purchased from Israel in the past decade includes radar for the Arrow missile-intercept system, manufactured by Israel Aircraft Industries; sea-to-sea missiles manufactured by IAI and Rafael Advanced Weapons Systems; IAI warning planes, communications systems made by Elbit and ammunition manufactured by Israel Military Industries.

However, the potential of the transactions that have been discussed more recently is of a far greater scale. The projects include the upgrading of tanks and other combat vehicles, the supply of Barak-8 advanced missiles for protection of seagoing vessels and maritime facilities, and observation systems. India has expressed an interest in the technological progress embodied in the operational success of the Iron Dome system, manufactured by Rafael, in intercepting rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, though it’s doubtful that Iron Dome is appropriate for India’s needs.
-------------

In the face of the missile arsenal – and the nuclear capability – of Pakistan, India’s hostile neighbor, India must maintain commensurate strategic deterrence. The Indian authorities might thus be interested in systems, now under development, for interception of longer-range missiles.

----

At the moment, a huge deal is in the works. India wants to purchase advanced antitank missiles. The two suitors competing for the contract, which has an estimated worth of $1 billion, are Rafael’s Spike anti-tank guided missile and the Americans’ Javelin system.
-----------
In my short visit, I found a preponderance of pessimism and gloom, tempered somewhat by expectation of change. The fate of 1.2 billion people hangs in the balance. The change might come from the general election in May, in which, according to forecasts, the BJP, the Hindi nationalist party, will defeat the ruling National Congress Party.

Even on a lightning visit, Delhi is a surprising mix for someone encountering the city for the first time. Opposite the office building housing the research institute, people are scavenging in garbage cans. The impression made by the beauty of the grand monuments is erased within minutes by a depressing encounter with the girls who knock on the windows of the car and beg at every major intersection, with infants in tow who look groggy, as though they are under the influence of anesthetics...
------
On Sunday morning, a group of wild monkeys tranquilly crosses the road in the quarter where the foreign embassies are situated. The hotels look like fortified luxurious bastions from the period of the British Empire, and every foreigner is surrounded by a waiters and other staff members..
.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.575486

[Riaz Haq]

Here's a BR report on openness of India and Pakistan markets:

In an International Chamber of Commerce report, both Pakistan and India have been clubbed together in "below average openness" section with regard to trade openness. In the ICC report, India is ranked 64 with trade openness score of 2.5 which puts it in "Below Average Openness". Pakistan is not too far and placed at 69 position with an aggregate score of 2.1.

The only difference between the two countries is that Indian government, over the period of time, has built adequate protection mechanism by employing range of tariff and non tariff barriers. With the result that now every sensitive sector in India like automotive, agriculture, textiles and pharmaceuticals are now adequately protected by means of WTO compliant tariff and non tariff barriers.

On the other hand, Pakistan Government has not done enough so far to protect its critical sectors and as a result they remain highly exposed in case Ministry of Commerce decides to open trade with India. The ICC grades nations in four broad categories: trade openness, trade policy regime, openness to foreign direct investment (FDI), and infrastructure open for trade.

According to stakeholders, it makes it a very interesting study for someone in our commerce ministry as to how India is protecting its local auto industry. Importer needs to acquire certain permissions from Indian government for importing CBU vehicles into India which requires that the incumbent has to go through a long bureaucratic process whereas in Pakistan anyone can import any vehicle new or used.
----------
It is worth mentioning here that Bharat IV emission is considered technical barrier to trade by other competitive industries in the world because of its uniqueness for it requires vehicles to be produced specifically for Indian market. Another national trade barrier (NTB), which is still not addressed, is the restricted entry to Pakistani nationals which is something Indians have always trumpeted to be relaxed but no major development has been seen in this regard. Pakistanis have only three entry points into India: Mumbai/Delhi/Chennai (By Air), Attari / Munabao (By Train) and Attari (By Bus).

Interestingly while the points of entry for individual and cars are restricted the checking authorities are situated in entirely different cities which becomes difficult for foreign companies to pursue their products case. These smartly and intelligently placed NTBs are not only difficult to deal with but also impossible to match also. Our exports have, therefore, seen negligible increase in the last 16 years.

Stakeholders said cement industry can serve as an eye opening example, where exports, despite having good reputation and high demand in Indian market, have been failing to gather pace and witnessing a continuous contraction due to non-resolution of NTBs which stand in the way of increase. According to All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) statistics, cement exports to India stood at 786,672 tons in 2007 to 08, a number which witnessed steady decline to reach 722,968 tons in 2009 to 10. In 2010 to 2011, cement exports to India further decreased to 590,104 tons despite talks on removing the negative trade list between the two countries. However, exports recorded a slight increase in 2011 to 2012, reaching to 605,453 tons. FY 2012-2013 ended with lowest exports figure of 482,215 tons, showing negative growth in cement exports by 20.35 percent.

http://www.brecorder.com/business-and-economy/189:pakistan/1157802:...