| August 30, 2007 | Thursday | Sha’aban 16, 1428 |
India’s new trade offer
The president’s office By Rifaat Hamid Ghani
An exchange of politicians
IF you watch television these days or read the newspapers, you will find nothing but heated discussions and screaming headlines about political bargains, predictions and pronouncements about the return of the exiled leaders. Excited discussants make us believe that some sort of a revolution is round the corner.
THE recent meeting in New Delhi of the secretaries of commerce of Pakistan and India was the most satisfactory one after a long time. And that came as a surprise to Asif Shah who represented Pakistan. He not only got what he sought but also an invitation to come up with a list of twenty items which it can export to India.
PAKISTANIS from almost all disciplines of work have fanned out in the world and have done well. To be sure there have also been some black sheep amongst them. The only field from which Pakistanis have not moved is politics.
To an outsider, issues like ‘deal’ or ‘no deal’, the difference between ‘agreement’ and ‘understanding’, the president’s election in uniform or without it, would appear quite amusing, if not surrealistic. But to those who know the Pakistani political scene well, it is nauseating to watch retired generals talk about the pernicious effects of military rule in Pakistan, or former civil servants become hysterical about the virtues of democracy.
Would these stalwarts have the courage to say that Pakistan was achieved through a democratic process and was supposed to be a social welfare state? That it soon was converted into a national security state? Would they also admit that it was they and their predecessors who were responsible for derailing the process, losing half the country and bringing the other half to the brink of disaster?
What were the dreams of the teeming millions of undivided India? They looked forward to a future free from the tyranny of the ruling classes and the oppression of the feudals. They had hoped for justice and fair play in a state that would provide equal opportunities to the people and take care of their basic necessities like health, education, housing, drinking water and sanitation. But what did they get in the bargain? A garrison state spending most of the resources on defence and making the poor poorer.
This came about because our founding fathers opted for the viceregal system where decision-making was concentrated in the hands of a few. Before long, a coterie of people assumed power to rule the country in the same old colonial mould. The ‘gora sahib’ was replaced by the ‘brown sahib’ (who, unfortunately, was more arrogant and inaccessible than the former). For the downtrodden and disadvantaged, nothing changed.
How did the elite oligarchs seize control and how did they operate? It is a well known fact that the Muslim League was not an organised political party but a movement of people of all shades and colours. Its leadership mainly came from the landed gentry, but in UP, which was its home, and in Bengal, it no doubt had some leaders belonging to the professional classes as well.
The jagirdars, feudal lords, tribal chiefs and pirs initially opposed the idea of Pakistan but joined Mr Jinnah when Pakistan became a reality. He had no choice but to accept them if the Muslim League was to consolidate itself.
Sensing the weakness of the Muslim League leaders, the British-trained officer corps seized the opportunity to gradually assume all powers. Forming a sort of a supra-cabinet, where all important decisions were taken before they were placed before the cabinet, these oligarchs also became self-styled guardians of the ‘ideological’ frontiers of Pakistan. They were basically mercenaries and careerists working for their colonial masters and failed to develop a nationalistic outlook even in the post-1947 years.
Initially, there was a nexus between the bureaucracy, military and the feudal politicians. Handpicked industrialists and businessmen later joined the club. Professional classes, the mullahs and newspaper barons were the last ones to be co-opted. This oligarchy included almost all vested interests. The class divide was total with those in a position to exploit the resources of the new country ranged against the teeming millions who were powerless.
India may not have been a good neighbour, but the hype of enmity and permanent hostility was deliberately created. As a result, the social sectors were relegated to the lowest priority and most of the resources were diverted to nonproductive uses. In our first budget, over 60 per cent of income was allocated to defence, and in Oct 1947 Mr Jinnah requested the US government to sanction a loan of three billion dollars to modernise the Pakistan army.
It may be debatable whether Pakistan was supposed to be an Islamic or a secular state, but there is no doubt that it was meant to be an egalitarian state, with its federating units assured of autonomy. Having assumed all powers, the generals and senior bureaucrats started hobnobbing with the Pentagon and volunteered their services in the Cold War and became an American satellite. This relationship has continued ever since in one shape or another.
Internally, this oligarchy created an atmosphere of intimidation, harassment and coercion. On the economic front, they adopted a policy which concentrated all economic power in a few hands. Dr Ishrat Hussain (exgovernor State Bank) has given a graphic description of this approach in his book ‘Pakistan, The Economy of an Elitist State’, in which he has admonished military regimes for colluding with other elite groups to monopolise the state’s resources.
Intriguingly, his perception of the military seems to have undergone a dramatic shift since he wrote his book, as pointed out by Dr Ayesha Siddiqa in her recent book ‘Military Inc.’ Ishrat Hussain appears to have completely abandoned his earlier standpoint on the policies of military dictators after he joined the Musharraf government in 2000.
Starting from 1947, we have had all types of governments, both civilian and military dictatorships. But those who have remained in power are the same people and groups with changing names. Their policies have remained unchanged, the same old wine in new bottles.
For example, if Benazir or Nawaz Sharif come to power again, as is expected, will anything change? Will the provinces become autonomous? Will there be no arbitrariness in decision-making? Will there be rule of law? Will antioor policies and regressive tax structures change? Will there be laws to improve working conditions for workers, peasants, landless haris, and those employed in the informal sector? Will our heavy reliance on foreign loans come to an end? Will the National Assembly discuss the defence budget and redefine the role of the ubiquitous intelligence agencies?
Unfortunately, we do not see any signs of the political parties having done their homework in this regard.
Does this sound too dismal? It does but one should not lose heart. There are some silver linings visible. Firstly, the above description relates to the ruling oligarchy which is a small part of the total population. Although it has power and resources, and is well entrenched, it is gradually losing control. Leaving aside the middle classes, which are about 20 per cent of the population, there are 75 per cent people who are surviving not because of the state, but in spite of the state. They are yearning for change. They are bitter and angry and are waiting for a chance to show their strength. They only need social organisation and leadership.
Secondly, for the first time in 60 years, the elite consensus is under heavy strain as one of its major partners, the judiciary, has declared its independence. At least for the time being, it is not listening to the establishment.
Thirdly, people from Punjab are openly raising their voice against the military’s role in politics. If this trend becomes allit will change the nature of Pakistani politics for all times to come. Fourthly, there are very strong antiAmerican feelings across the board. Those leaders who want to remain in power only with American support, will find it increasingly difficult to survive.
And lastly, civil society, though still weak and disorganised, is slowly realising the importance of its role in making the government accountable. This trend is likely to increase and more people will follow the lead given by the black coats. In sum, the country seems to be reaching out to the future.
So, the Pakistan government is compiling the list in consultation with all the stakeholders in the country, while marking a beginning with the export of cement to India by six factories. The move for export of surplus wheat was dropped as the wheat prices at home shot up and ultimately touched a record Rs1,300 a ton.
The Indian proposal is that the items that are surplus in Pakistan but are needed by India should be exported. What is truly surprising is that the export of twenty Pakistani items will not face the usual hassle of non-tariff restrictions which are too irksome. This time, India did not ask for the Most Favoured Nation treatment in return for this concession. Nor did it seek transit facilities for trading with Afghanistan and Central Asia. Nor did it refer to the full implementation of the Safta.
India has in fact appointed a committee to identify the factors that result in a large imbalance in the trade between the two countries. According to the latest trade figures available, imports into Pakistan from India amounted to one billion dollars last year while Pakistan’s exports to India were $323 million. However, the informal trade between the two countries through smuggling and through third countries like Singapore and Dubai is estimated at $3billion.
The potential trade between the two countries is estimated at $5five billion.
One of the reasons for the poor formal trade between the two countries is lack of adequate transport infrastructure particularly for heavy trucks so both the governments have decided to build necessary roads so that more goods can move across the borders.
What has happened in India may not be a change of heart but a change of strategy. India feels that since smuggling on a large scale keeps flourishing it is better to have formal trade and profit by the taxes and know what moves on both sides so it prefers to permit formal trade on a restricted scale beginning with twenty items from Pakistan.
India also knows that Pakistan’s exportable surplus is limited and prices tend to rise when export to India is mentioned.
India also realises that the confidence building measures are making headway in several areas but not in the political sphere.
So while holding on fast to its position on political front, it seeks to make concessions on other fronts without damage to itself.
If earlier, it allowed the export of vegetables and meat to please the consumers in Pakistan it is now trying to please the businessmen by importing twenty selected items from Pakistan of their choice.
In this way India can create a strong lobby in Pakistan. While putting the basic Kashmir issue on the back burner, it wants to make concessions on the trade front and end the bickering on that score.
India knows the conditions in Afghanistan are too unsettled, with the Taliban on the ascendancy, large scale trade with Afghanistan is not possible. So it did raise the transit trade issue this time in New Delhi. The two delegations have agreed to open branches of their banks in each other’s country and promote linkages between their capital markets.
India didn’t raise the issue of full implementation of the Safta as it wanted its mechanism to take care of itself.
The Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry is well advised to consult the Indian Federation of Chambers of Commerce in respect of what India really needs before finalising its list.
The list should also be revised once in six months or a year so that supplies of items Pakistan is short can be taken off the list. India did not mention any reciprocal list for imports into Pakistan from India. Whether it will come up with such a list is not known at this stage.
The most significant part of the understanding between the two countries is the use of trucks between the two countries so that they can facilitate easy movement of heavy vehicles.
For trade in the north of Pakistan, trucks are evidently suited, while railway wagons could be in short supply. Hence traders on both sides have been insisting on the use of trucks, but the Pakistan government had been opposed to it except in case of vegetables. Some textile mill owners imported cotton on trucks in the north and got it cleared by the government after an ordinate delay.
But now the government will go along with the businessman and help them use the trucks.
Pakistan has now to move fast on the export front in which the world is moving fast. China is in the forefront and may soon emerge as the number two exporter in the world replacing the United States while Germany stays at number one position. China can do that with its eleven per cent economic growth which it is trying to reduce.
In the area of free trade, while Pakistan’s negotiations are making modest headway, Japan is about to sign an FTA agreement with the Asean. Even otherwise Asean is to have larger trade relations with China, Japan and South Korea and they had high level consultations in Manila last week.
The urgency for Pakistan to make headway on the export front has increased following the over $7billion current account deficit last year and 80-90 million dollars in July.
Such deficits cannot be sustained over a long period. Pakistan has to make a break in the export front and it is now proposing to have a country-oriented export policy for each importing country of Pakistan. and that is very proper but the disappointing news is that as we need large exportable surplus and value-added exports the manufacturing sector is stagnating.
‘THE uniform’ is the subject of such extensive discussion that the focus blurs. It is as if the fundamental issue in the president’s election is whether he is in uniform or out of it. Actually, the fundamental consideration in any election is the candidate.
This election takes place in times of tremendous uncertainty. Nationally and internationally we feel — and are — insecure.
People have strong opinions about General Musharraf who, with more than a full term of office behind him, has become controversial. Psychologically, Pakistanis are first and foremost concerned about national elections but these are being preceded by the president’s election. That does not take place on the basis of universal adult franchise. An electoral college, comprising the Senate and national and provincial assemblies, votes.
If the president is elected by the existing legislatures, it means they make the nation’s decision for the next five years, even though their own mandate is as good as ended and there is an urgent demand for national elections under consensually accepted caretakers. Fresh elections are demanded not just because this parliament is nearing the end of its always enfeebled life, but because it is perceived as a rubberstamp. In or out of uniform, elected by this college, any president lacks a popularly respected mandate.
There is another reason for treating a debate on the acceptability of the president in or out of uniform as secondary. It diverts attention from the vital debate whether the president should have the kind of power that he exercises over the legislature and the chief executive. This debate predates the uniform issue. Thanks to the Eighth Amendment’s infamous articles, presidents Ghulam Ishaq and Leghari were able to circumvent the prime minister in concert with the men in uniform. The point to grasp is that military involvement in political government is odious and even when well-meant turns noxious very fast.
It is also essential to recognise that the problem with Pakistan’s electoral/democratic politics has almost equally been that, whether vested in a president or prime minister, executive power has unfailingly been used injudiciously.
Post-Zia in the troika contest the opposition sought out or played into the hands of the agencies. Oligarchs and militarists are tempted to exploit public disenchantment with elected governments and have found the judiciary a willing handmaiden — until now. But the change is so recent that it is too early to take readings on its implications. We cannot be euphoric, for those who are averse to real change of the status quo may do their best to nullify or evade an independent judiciary through fresh legislation.
Which brings us to a consideration of the role of an elected legislature. The relentless unfolding of events this summer highlighted the constructive democratic impact of a free press and an independent judiciary. We are overlooking something of great importance in seeking checks and balances on executive power: the legislature. We discuss prime ministers, chief justices, army chiefs, but do not critique supine legislatures that support dictators and juntas rather than the people and the democratic cause. All the parliament has to do is take cognisance of the public context when voting. Just why is the legislature so inert and removed from popular sentiment?
Perhaps because no legislature has ever been systemically voted out. For when parliament shows its teeth an army chief moves to act under Article 58-2(b). Not without reason has this parliament been able to complete its term. Contrast its longevity with the parliament that did not complete its term under General Zia and his prime minister, Junejo, in May 1988.
At the present moment, dissolution of the parliament would mean the loss of an electoral college and could hasten an emergency. But the real impact of the declaration of an emergency and martial law would be on the president himself. For the regime that births an emergency does not survive long. Emergencies can become Frankensteins. And the public mood is much the same as in August 1988 when General Mirza Aslam Beg and President Ghulam Ishaq Khan opted for elections — truly held in 90 days.
They realised the army’s involvement in civil government had become an embarrassment and burden even unto itself.
But in 2007, when the international community is so Musharraf-compatible, is there wisdom in Pakistan’s retaining his services to reassure friends? If ever there was a specious argument, this is one. The West has already begun to appreciate that, comfortable though they would be with continuity, there is little need to quash change. The suppression of natural changes to the quasi-democratic paradigm could build up explosive pressures.
In line with the “safety-in-continuity” reasoning is the argument that nervous indigenous liberals advance that some linkage with “the uniform” is desirable because how to deal with violent extremism otherwise? Civil society needs the troops, constabularies, Rangers out there... Does it? There is more than one opinion on that. And if it does, what reason is there to assume the army would not be responsive to national need unless a man who had once worn uniform or is still in it occupies the presidency?
The gravitas of presidential office demands constitutionalism, not hurried hunting for legal lacunae. It carries no public weight arrived at as a foregone conclusion obtained in closed rooms and guaranteed by a handful of political beneficiaries. And presidential state symbolises the unity of the federation. The president needs to devise a way of passing on the mantle before it is tattered.
Politics is not deemed to be a marketable vocation as it is probably not considered to be ‘work’. In Pakistan politics has remained a hereditary business and as is the case with such businesses, success has come as a matter of right. Personal growth and development have not merited a high priority.
There is little to show on most Pakistani politicians’ CVs except that the politician is a parliamentarian, has been a member of five different political parties, excels at staging walkouts and whose desk-thumping skills are well recognised.
To be fair, the CVs of politicians from many other countries are not likely to read any different. The politicians clearly need help to improve their functioning. They cannot be sent back to school, many have never been to one anyway. What can perhaps be done is something along the lines of the student exchange programmes, which expose students to new experiences and help broaden their perspectives. This could be done under the sponsorship of a relevant UN agency.
Politicians could be exchanged between two, or more, countries to work in the other’s capital on comparable political positions. The minimum exchange tenure would be one year to avoid exchanges from turning into junkets, such as the visit last year by a plane load of our politicians to Spain to study that country’s constitution, economy, culture, and to learn to dance the Flamenco — all in less than two days.
Here are some suggestions. President Musharraf and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt will benefit by switching jobs for a year. President Musharraf can gain from Egypt’s experience in handling the Ikhwan, while President Hosni Mubarak will learn a lot about living and coping with a free press and electronic media, and also a new look independent judiciary. While his Egyptian tenure could turn out to be a well earned rest and recreation break for President Musharraf, whether President Hosni Mubarak will want to repeat the Pakistan experience is a question.
Nawaz Sharif may not be president, but in word and deed as a match for George W. Bush he is ‘just what the doctor ordered’. With Nawaz in Washington directing the US effort in Afghanistan and George W. Bush in London directing PML (N) affairs, what can go wrong that has not already.
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president is a tough nut. There are no matching tough nuts in the Pakistan ruling set up, none either in the non ruling set up. Unless, therefore, Dick accepts an exchange tenure with Gen (retired) Hameed Gul who has stuck with his jihadi agenda as doggedly as Dick has with his Iraq and Afghanistan agenda.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is an easy one to match. Bring in the prime minister of Iceland and both will be comfortable on each other’s jobs. Islamabad and Reykjavik may not be alike, their prime minister’s jobs are.
A Benazir Bhutto and Hillary Clinton exchange for a year may appear natural. However, for Hillary her added strength is her husband, Bill Clinton. American voters feel voting for Hillary would also be voting for Bill and what they would get is ‘two for the price of one’. The same may be true for Benazir but voters in Pakistan would sooner go for the ‘one for the price of one’ option.
The railways minister Sheikh Rasheed and the Indian railways minister Laloo Prasad Yadav would make for a great exchange. Sheikh Rasheed will leave the Indian railway to run on its own, while he drives the Indian prime minister up the wall with his advice that whatever Sardar Manmohan Singh’s government is doing in any field, can be done better, and that he is the man do it.
Laloo Prasad Yadav will make the Pakistan Railways run on time and, given half a chance, probably also PIA. But the campaign to bring the Biharis back from Bangladesh will take on a new dimension.
Imran Khan and Barack Obama, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for the next US presidential elections, will gain a lot through an exchange of roles. Imran is more focused and clear in his other admirable endeavours, but somewhat less so in politics. Obama is focused and clear on domestic issues, but a disaster in foreign affairs. Imran will learn to focus on domestic issues, while Obama will learn to locate Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan on the map and, if he works hard enough, maybe also Waziristan.
Of fair weather politicians, as of fair weather friends, there is no dearth in this world, and Pakistan has more than its share of them. Arranging appropriate exchanges for them would be a breeze. Abida Husain, Aftab Sherpao, Rao Sikander, Chaudhry Shujaat, Liaquat Jatoi, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi and others can start packing their bags.
The writer is a retired corporate executive
husainsk@cyber.net.pk