Are we neglecting airlines’ role in tourism promotion?
By Aileen Qaiser
THE ministry of tourism recently unveiled an impressive calendar of cultural attractions for ‘Visit Pakistan Year 2007’, now renamed by the livelier slogan ‘Destination Pakistan 2007’, to attract what would hopefully be a record number of tourists next year.
The big question is even with these 52 or so colourful events all over the country lined up for the coming year, would we be able to bring in a record number of visitors given the poor health of our national flag carrier PIA.
For any country to be worth visiting, it needs not only tourist attractions but also accessibility. Statistics show that accessibility by air is crucial for international tourism.
Given the geo-political environment around Pakistan, it is obvious that the majority of visitors come by air. According to statistics of the UN World Tourism Organization, Pakistan had an estimated 648,000 tourist arrivals in 2004, up from 378,000 in 1995.
Country Tourist arrival
2004 1995
Iran 1,659,000 489,000
India 3,457,000 2,124,000
Malaysia 15,703,000 7,469,000
Thailand 11,737,000 6,952,000
China 41,761,000 20,034,000
Pakistan 648,000 378,000
Technically speaking, all airlines flying into Pakistan, most important of which is naturally our very own PIA, play a noble role in making our country accessible to international tourists. Some 14 airlines land at Islamabad Airport, including PIA and three other local airlines, while Lahore Airport is served by 16 airlines and Karachi has some 36 airlines flying through its airport.
However, it is not only the number of airlines but which airlines and also the frequency of flights in a week which determine the accessibility of a country. For instance, Spain’s Madrid and Barcelona airports each have only 35 airlines serving them, as compared to India’s New Delhi and Mumbai airports which have 70 and 42 airlines respectively. Yet Spain was the second top tourist destination in the world in 2004 with 52.4 million tourist arrivals while India only had 3.4 million tourist arrivals in the same year.
How effective PIA is in performing the role of increasing the accessibility of Pakistan to international tourists can be judged by the health of the airline. And our national airline is in very bad health. It has degenerated over the past three-and-a-half decades from a successful trend-setting corporation in the 1960s to a concern today that seems to exist only to serve certain vested interests.
According to recent media reports, as well as revelations made during a recent briefing by PIA to the Senate standing committee on defence and defence production, PIA is not only deep in the red, it is also in a shambles administratively, hardly being able to cover existing international and domestic routes even by leasing or borrowing aircraft from here and there.
PIA is even having trouble handling newly acquired aircraft. The airline seems unable to put into routine operation the new ATR turboprop planes on routes to the tourism-important Northern Areas, access to which was practically cut off after the grounding of the Fokker planes in July.
Although PIA cites rising fuel costs as the major reason for it being in the terrible mess that it is in, it is obvious that other factors are also responsible, chief of which seem to be a combination of management failure and the lack of government commitment to the success of the airline, both in terms of revenue generation and tourist promotion.
Although the Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly and the Defence Committee of the Senate have both raised the issue of PIA’s poor performance, and the ministry of defence had reportedly ordered an inquiry into PIA’s affairs earlier this year, nothing seems to have moved so far.
It is puzzling that we have not deemed it fit as yet to order a commission of inquiry into the affairs of PIA, particularly into decisions in the past that have adversely affected its performance. Such a commission of inquiry is also very much needed for recommending measures that should be taken to turn PIA around.
Even a layman knows that one of the first basic rules in tourist promotion is an efficient national airline. If we really want to encourage tourism, we must rejuvenate PIA and give it a new lease of life. PIA needs to lower costs yet at the same time raise quality and standards, operate more efficiently, exploit business opportunities, enter into new marketing alliances, promote new investments that raise productivity and last but not least raise profits, all this to be achieved despite rising fuel costs.
While reforming PIA, we should at the same time actively engage with other foreign airlines in developing and promoting the tourism industry in our country. Some ministries of tourism in other countries have signed memorandums of understanding with foreign airlines to market their countries as attractive tourist destinations to holiday-makers travelling on these airlines. For example, Australia’s tourism ministry has an umbrella memorandum of understanding with Singapore Airlines to market Australia as an attractive tourist destination.
Similarly, our ministry of tourism could consider cooperating with foreign airlines that land here in the joint promotion of Pakistan internationally as a compelling tourist destination and boost tourist arrivals here. Aside from joint promotional activities, such agreements would also represent commitment of resources by our ministry of tourism in promoting Pakistan overseas with important airline partners.
Finally, our ministry of tourism might want to start looking at Saarc as one of our key sources of tourism, particularly as people in the region are beginning to earn more and can afford to travel. A major bottleneck towards the promotion of tourism in Pakistan and in other South Asian countries has been the dearth of travelling within the region. As experience in regions elsewhere has shown, e.g., in Southeast Asia and Europe, it is the regional tourists which usually form the bulk of tourist arrivals in any particular country.
In the promotion of regional tourism, low-cost or budget airlines have an important role to play in providing point-to- point services bypassing congested hubs. But the success of budget regional airlines, as with the success of any regular national airline, depends on active commitment and support from the government.


Peace may arrive in Kashmir via Ireland, Sri Lanka
By Jawed Naqvi
MIRWAIZ Umar Farooq called from London last week. He was heading for Ireland as guest of the British Foreign Office, which had invited him to study the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland. The pact was brokered, among others, by President Bill Clinton. The young head of the Hurriyat Party was planning to visit Oslo next before returning to Delhi. In Oslo, he said, he hoped to meet officials involved in peace efforts between Tamil rebels and the predominantly Sinhalese Sri Lankan government. Oslo has also featured prominently on the radar of the Palestinians and Israelis as and when they have found it right to talk peace.
The Mirwaiz was then hoping to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Delhi, preferably before he leads a delegation of his Hurriyat colleagues to Islamabad for talks with President Musharraf. There were separate reports from Islamabad last week that President Musharraf too had asked the visiting foreign minister of Norway to take interest in Kashmir and to offer suggestions on what could be done to narrow the disagreements between India and Pakistan.
The Irish model was prescribed for Kashmir by President Clinton in March 2003 when he addressed decision-makers in Delhi at a symposium. The Irish model again cropped up in a conversation in August this year that President Musharraf had with senior Indian writer A.G. Noorani. It would be useful to recall exceprts from that interview because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday appeared to respond favourably to the gist of this conversation. Here’s the relevant part of the Q&A.
Noorani: You have used some phrases or concepts which are misunderstood. I know you have not spoken of joint sovereignty (over Kashmir) but joint management; maybe joint control.
Musharraf: One of the four steps after demilitarisation is self-governance. Let the people govern themselves. You talk of maximum autonomy, lots of people talk of maximum autonomy. We need to define what is the maximum autonomy that you are talking of and what is the self-governance that I am talking of. We need to see how the people should govern themselves. Lastly is the superstructure that gives comfort to both, Pakistan and India, and their involvement and some responsibility and some commitment; involvement, I would say, in having their say on both sides of the border.
Noorani: I was coming to that. I am very happy that you have mentioned it. The prime minister of India, at the round table conference with Kashmiris in Srinagar on May 25, used strong words - `institutional arrangements’ between the two parts of Kashmir. Would you consider that as an acceptable mode of joint management, an institutional arrangement linking the two parts of Kashmir?
Musharraf: Yes, I think that is a starter. This is a very good term. Would you identify?
Noorani: There is a model. The Ministerial Council between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, it may not have executive powers. Let us face it, we cannot have executive powers. But if there are regular meetings, trust builds up and they evolve joint policies by common consent without wielding executive powers. Would you consider that a good substitute?
Musharraf: The term you use, `institutional arrangements’, is what I think is correct. But we need to define the modalities.
Noorani: If the leaders agree politically, then the lawyers come in. What you have said is a very forward step because there was misunderstanding about joint control and joint management? Now you have said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s proposal on institutional management is doable, I think that is a step forward.
Musharraf: Yes. But let me clarify. Noorani Sahib, this term `joint management' was first coined by (former Indian diplomat) Mr. J.N. Dixit. These are not my words. I took these words from Mr Dixit when he coined them, where we had backdoor diplomacy going on, and that is how I started calling it joint management. So these are not my words really.
Noorani: I find much common ground between what you have said and what our prime minister has said. For example, both of you agree that the LoC should be made `irrelevant’. The prime minister said at the round table conference on May 25 that it becomes just a line on the map. Do you think this is a good statement?
Musharraf: I think it is a good statement.
Noorani: In other words, de jure the sovereignties end at the line on the map. But de facto the state becomes one.
Musharraf: Yes. That kind of an arrangement, as you said, this institutionalising the arrangement, needs discussion and thought. I have said we give governance to the people and we then make an arrangement which is acceptable to both Pakistan and India. Compare this and President Musharraf’s latest interview to NDTV with his four steps on Kashmir that were enunciated during an absorbing meeting with senior Indian editors in Agra in 2001. We can see a continuity, despite the militarist disruptions of 2002, in the trajectory of the peace talks.
In President Musharraf’s scheme of things the first step seems to have been taken in July 2001 with the invitation by Prime Minister Vajpayee for the Agra summit. The second step, going by what he told the Indian editors, was to acknowledge the existence of the issue of Kashmir by India. This second step involved also the removal from the table of what was not acceptable to either side as negotiable. It would be fair to surmise that these requirements have been met.
It was this step after all that was sealed last week by Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee when he tersely told parliament that if the MPs really believed that Kashmir was not a negotiable issue, then there was not much left to discuss with Pakistan. The message was expected to have a sobering effect on the MPs, especially on those who had been led to believe that a 1993 resolution claiming Azad Kashmir as the only dispute was some kind of an irrevocable principle. Prime Minister Singh’s positive response to Gen Musharraf’s comments was another signal that serious talks are going on in the back channel. In this context the Mirwaiz would find that the Sri Lankan and the Irish models for peace between India and Pakistan may offer some talking points in the context of Kashmir, but they may fall well short of the required remedy. The Irish situation was rooted in nationalism driven by religion. The Sri Lankan dispute rests on ethnic, mainly linguistic, differences between the Tamils and the Sinhalese. There are bits from each of the models that may be relevant. But at the end of the day India and Pakistan will have to look for solutions that are more home-grown and durable.
Tailpiece: In his book, `A call to honour’, former Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh recalls how the 1998 nuclear tests in Pokharan were preceded by serious concern over the safety of cattle at the test site. 'For the team at the test site -- which included A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, then the head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, -- possibly death or injury to cattle was just not acceptable. “A test to ascertain India’s scientific and hi-tech capability would ordinarily not accord too much importance to the safety of cattle, but this team of scientists did,” he says.


