Trade happens. History shows that sometimes, it happens even among warring countries. Pakistan and India have lived with some inconvenient historical baggage, but mutual trading has hardly stopped – much due to the circular trading via Gulf.
The need to normalise bilateral relations and formalise trade is usually agreed on. But for some reason, only the doves and the hawks (of the economic kind) have dominated this discourse in Pakistan so far, with little space and appreciation for the realist views on the subject.
‘If China can normalise trade with two of its hostile neighbours India and Taiwan, and if US and Russia can partake with each other after cold war, Pakistan and India can also open up more of their markets to each other?’ is usually how the doves start off the conversation on the issue. Harbouring a strong consumer-bias, they view trade normalisation as a strong means to lead to enhanced bilateral social exchange.
The hawks, which are mostly producer-centric, don’t refute the argument for more economic engagement, but consider it a bad idea to immediately open up domestic markets for Indian exporters when local industries are finding it hard to remain competitive due to multiple crises. Industries, which stand to lose post-trade normalisation, are naturally the most vocal constituency against it.
They sometimes project the Indian non-tariff barriers as all that is wrong in trading with India, in their bid to oppose government parleys with India on other trade-related matters.
But recent incidents suggest that a healthy dose of realism is required, so as not to lose hope or give up on bilateral engagement. Realists maintain that progress on key issues between India and Pakistan will always be affected by unknown variables like border incidents, domestic political instability, etc. and known variables such as scheduled elections. They realise that a break out from the past will take its sweet time.
Case in point: After the border incidents in January, the rhetoric seemed to have reached fever pitch in India – but as it turns out, the hawks in Indian media had a major role in forcing the Indian leadership to issue provocative statements. The furor has fortunately died down and diplomacy is back in play.
The realists point out a positive take away from this recent episode: the trade normalisation process has not been derailed, though a halt was inevitable. Moreover, the PPP government’s dithering on the scheduled announcements of MFN status (to India) and negative list abolishment didn’t receive a scathing criticism in India, which shows that the Indian side probably understood the political compulsions of the government here.
In the Indo-Pak context, what then needs to be focused on is process continuity and consistency. For that, a lot depends on how successful the two countries leadership will be in the future in shielding progress from negative events.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.