INDIA’S decision to lift ban on investments from individuals and companies in Pakistan — a move welcomed by the foreign office — may not prove strong enough to spur an accelerated normalisation of bilateral trade because of what Islamabad considers ‘slow progress’ in dialogue on core issues which was expected to move in tandem with trade initiatives.

Munir Qureshi, the new commerce secretary in place of Zafar Mahmood, who played a key role in effecting a thaw in frozen business ties, while explaining the delay caused by lack of progress on resolving age-old issues, said: “trade talks are not independent from other disputed issues, as they form a part of broader Confidence Building Measures.”

Saying that symbols matter in diplomacy, but substance matters too, the Times of India said in a recent report, “as things stand, we are in danger of too much symbolism and too little substance.”

Kanti Bajpa, the analyst, says, India-Pakistan relations are better than they have been for many years, but all said and done not much is being accomplished materially.

The Indian decision to open its markets to Pakistani investors is in fact aimed at attracting some of the capital which is already fleeing the country in search of green pastures and mostly entering Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Malaysia because of worsening energy and security situation at home. How far India can prove to be green pastures remains to be seen.

But not much investment may reach India for lack of similar benefits there, other reasons being fears of unequal treatment, uncertainty and insecure returns.

Then, Pakistani entrepreneurs have, for long, been denied the presence of Pakistani banks in India to help them in financial exigencies. However the State Bank of Pakistan has just allowed two banks, NBP and UBL, to open branches in India. New Delhi is soon to follow suit.

Efforts for enhanced trade have met little success due to New Delhi’s failure to respond with equal zeal Islamabad’s initiatives to remove hurdles in trade. A case in point is the frustrating inaction by Indian authorities to do away with non-tariff barriers which make Pakistani goods expensive. This is contrary to the spirit of even level-playing field.

Pakistan’s cabinet had earlier decided in February to replace the positive list with a negative list of trade items numbering 1,209, far less than before, which were not to be exported to Pakistan.

The list is to expire by December 31 if all goes well according to the original scheme. This is to be followed by the grant of the promised Most Favoured Nation status to India. Qureshi informed the Lahore Chamber members on July 20 that the negative list’s future is still uncertain.

It would either be completely eliminated by the end of December 2012 or drastically reduced.

The Foreign Office has now advised the commerce ministry to ‘go slow’ because no meaningful progress has taken place on the core issues, despite several rounds of talks.

Regarding Pakistani businessmen’s apprehensions, which refuse to go away, on doing trade with India, the federal secretary hopes that Pakistani officials would be able to explore ways with Indian officials to remove genuine problems being faced by Pakistani businessmen.

However, he admitted that non-tariff barriers is a serious issue in trade with India which often causes undue delay in clearance of goods and raises the exporter’s expenditure. It must be done away with.

In February, both countries had signed three pacts on facilitating customs procedures and streamlining quality control issues.

But India has not effectively implemented these treaties and hence Pakistani exporters are still facing the same obstacles.

Mark Magnier of Los Angeles Times observed on July 18: “Efforts have been made recently to repair relations badly damaged by the 2008 attack on Mumbai.

Though there have been a number of symbolic feel-good measures and more high-level meetings, little concrete progress is evident. Nor, say those on both sides, is much to be expected if history is any judge.” There are numerous goodwill gestures but goodwill is useless ‘unless someone in the administrations is willing to back it up’.

On more substantive fronts, Pakistan agreed in February to extend most-favoured-nation status to India, which reduces tariffs and trade barriers, a move that India made in 1996.

But, says Magnier, the process has bogged down. The two countries recently opened a large terminal on the Wagah border that could help two-way trade triple to $8 billion a year. While India plans to allow direct Pakistani investment, a proposal to grant business people multiple-entry visas remains stalled.

He quotes a former major general in the Indian army as saying that “the trade and liberalised visa regime seemed to fall flat, a pretty good indicator of the state of relations. You have to look at the dialogue, and there’s absolutely no progress in that.”

According to Times of India, the only thing of substance from Pakistan has been the offer of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India.

Islamabad has withheld this status forever on the grounds that it will only resume normal trading ties when the Kashmir problem is more or less solved. Last year, in a pleasant surprise, Bajpa says, the Gilani government announced ‘it was ready to change course’. Since then, under pressure, Islamabad seems to have slowed down once again, raising doubts whether it is ready to give India MFN status or not.

The fact remains that India and Pakistan need to add substance to mostly ‘symbolic diplomacy.’ Siachen would be a good place to begin the march towards substance.

The Indian newspaper is of the opinion that “Pakistan, for its part, must unequivocally give India MFN status. Sir Creek should be next on the list of substantial problem solving; this also was nearly solved in 1993. The prime minister and his Pakistani counterpart need to shore up symbolic with real courage and resolve what is resolvable to create the base for a Kashmir settlement in the future.”

The Siachen dispute can be easily resolved. After an avalanche took the lives of over 20 Pakistani soldiers a few weeks ago, Islamabad indicated it would like to settle the matter. New Delhi’s response has been desultory and largely negative. What exactly is the point of sticking to a hard position on Siachen?