India, along with China, is the economic engine that will drive global economic growth for possibly decades to come. The whole world is keen for a slice of that action. Are we — who ironically are best placed to take advantage (both directly and indirectly) — to be the only ones to reject such a golden opportunity?
Many readers are probably watching the Indian Premier League (IPL) matches these days. Like it or not, the event is now firmly established, is clearly a big success, and likely to go from strength to strength in the coming years. The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), and our own cricketers, must be green with envy. The top international stars are playing, except those from Pakistan. Is that not a great pity?
Anyway, even if we will be unable to attract international stars, or compete with the IPL extravaganza, should the PCB not at least be organising our own mini-version of the event?
How wonderful would it have been had Karachi and Lahore had franchised teams of their own in the IPL (much like the Lahore Badshahs played in the defunct Indian Cricket League), and could host many of the matches. I leave you to speculate on all the benefits of such an impossibly wishful thought that obviously has no chance of materialising.
We tell the world that it is trade, not aid, that we desperately seek for our skewed and dysfunctional economy. But let us think a little clearly. What we are actually seeking from the US and Europe, in the guise of this mantra, is market access for our textiles, as a ‘concession’.
For all our efforts over the years, this they are loath to give us, for all sorts of reasons. And, we are told, there is no support in the US Congress for a Free Trade Agreement between Pakistan and the US. Moreover, we also know that, when it comes to lobbying, we are no match — nor ever will be, for obvious reasons — for the powerful Indian lobby in the US. In the light of these formidable obstacles, what are the chances we will get our wish? Not very bright, would you not say?
But what might happen if the Indian lobby in the US was to actively support (or, at least, not oppose) our efforts? Ah! There is another impossibly wishful thought. And, I suppose, one could say very much the same about our quest for a civil nuclear deal with the US.
In any case, the true basis of trade is the mutual need for, and exchange of, competitive goods and services. What has our economy to offer — as compared to that of India — that the US and Europe really need?
Instead, consider the following argument. Regional trade the world over is of primary importance simply because geographical proximity is a key variable of relative competitive advantage. Should we not, therefore, be seriously looking towards our big eastern neighbour for the best long-term trading opportunities? With its giant domestic market and impressive growth rate, India (along with China) is the economic engine that will drive global economic growth for possibly decades to come. The whole world is keen for a slice of that action. Are we — who ironically are best placed to take advantage (both directly and indirectly) — to be the only ones to reject such a golden opportunity to dramatically improve the economic prospects of our future generations?
Many self-styled analytical geniuses in our fold still live in a self-induced dream world where our country is believed to occupy a geo-strategic location of allegedly great importance for the rest of the world. This ‘fact’ is supposed to provide us with a kind of leverage that compels the big powers to not only provide us the odd free lunch now and then, but also to underwrite the unending lavish parties befitting our status we like to think it is our right to throw. But ask yourself: what makes us so special that entitles us to think a hard-nosed world really owes us a living?
By now I have gotten tired of pointing out (giving solid reasons) that this is little more than delusional self-deception. In the ultimate analysis, we count for little in the calculations of the big powers. It may be unpalatable to our psyche but the truth is all they really seek from us is that we stop being the epicentre of their perceived security concerns (imagined or real). As all the hard evidence of their actions demonstrate, it is India not us, that is their real geo-strategic partner of choice in the region (and for reasons that should be obvious even to a dummy).
About the only real importance of our geographical location is as a vital trade and energy corridor between the Central Asian Republics and the rest of the world. The question I am compelled to ask is how long is it going to be before we create the conditions that will allow us to exploit the full economic potential of such a positional advantage to the immense benefit of our people?
I have not said anything here that is not obvious or many others have not said before. And that is even without enumerating (because of lack of space) all the innumerable and solid other collateral economic, political, and social dividends we can reap, if only.
Ah! There is the rub: if only … what? Peace, of course. And do we not all (save a few loonies on the fringes) want that? Sure we do. So what is the problem?
The problem is, we want peace on terms acceptable to us. And those terms, so far, have been unacceptable to our adversary. Now we can, with every justification, say exactly the same about the Indian attitude (besides our claim that our case is a just one while theirs is not). But, in the impasse that so results, we ignore one crucial reality: as the status-quo power India can both comfortably resist and afford the consequences of confrontation; the costs for us are unbearably steep. So, bitterly unpalatable though it may be, it is us who will have to make the real concessions because our bargaining position is weak. Is it not high time we forget the past, look to the future and make that painful adjustment?
For anyone to suggest a decade ago that we give up, in our own larger interest, our most cherished national cause of 60 years would surely have invited a spate of choice insulting epithets such as an unpatriotic coward, a security risk, an Indian agent, or even a traitor. Fortunately, we have slowly reached a level of maturity where publicly airing such views is at least possible without fear of painful consequences. But when will we reach that level of political maturity where, in our thinking, the welfare and prosperity of the people overwhelms all other national considerations? http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\04\14\story_14-4-2010_pg3_2
Be First to Comment