India-Pakistan Trade: A Roadmap for Enhancing Economic Relations

[PARIKRAMA]

India-Pakistan Trade: A Roadmap for Enhancing Economic Relations

This article is based on extensive articles of Mr Mohsin S Khan where Khan sir has presented with many steps as a part of a strategy to change the dynamics between India and Pakistan. These steps can help tide over the constant issues both nations face while trying to find ways and means for everlasting peace between both of them..

About Mohsin S Khan Sir

Mohsin S. Khan
Biographical Information

July 02, 2014
Mohsin S. Khan, from Pakistan, is the Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Khan holds a B.A. from Punjab University in Pakistan, a B.Sc. in economics from the London School of Economics, an M.A. from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. He joined the IMF in 1972 as an Economist in the Financial Studies Division of the Research Department, where he held increasingly senior positions, including Advisor, Assistant Director, and Senior Advisor. He was Deputy Director of the Research Department before becoming Director of the IMF Institute in 1996. In 2003 he was appointed Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department of the IMF.

His past experience includes: Visiting Lecturer and Research Fellow at the London School of Economics (1975-76); Adviser to the Central Bank of Venezuela (1976); and Chief of the Macroeconomics Division of the Development Research Department in the World Bank (1985-86). Mr. Khan serves on the editorial boards of ten academic journals. He is a member of the Research Advisory Panel of the South Asia Network of Economic Institutes (SANEI) in India. He is listed in Who's Who in Economics (1986, 1999). In 2003 he was awarded (jointly with A. Mirakhor) the Islamic Development Bank Prize in Islamic Economics for outstanding contributions to the field.

Mr. Khan has published widely on macroeconomic and monetary policies in developing countries, economic growth, international trade and finance, Islamic banking, and IMF programs. He has edited seven books and published numerous articles in the main economics journals.
Mohsin S. Khan -- Biographical Information


+++
Improving economic ties may help to resolve the larger political issues that have be-deviled India-Pakistan overall relations for over 68 years.

This is the theme on which Khan sir proposed steps basically in 2 time frames and neglected the third time frame of Long term measures. -

• Short term (6-12 months time frame)
• Medium term (1-3 years time frame)

His opinion was based on the fact that before thinking anything about long term fundamental reforms, both India and Pakistan need to build public support for trade liberalization.

Initial steps should focus on bilateral measures that can be accomplished relatively easily—by executive order rather than via legislation and with minimal resource implications and that would meaningfully increase trade while gaining support for bigger and bolder steps down the line.

While a few of the measures proposed here fall under the ambit of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and have to be handled in a multilateral setting, most would involve only bilateral agreements between the two countries.

Short-Term Measures

• Easing restrictions on visas, specifically, allowing multiple entry visas for businessmen, eliminating requirements to report arrival to the police at each place of stay, eliminating city-specific visas, and speeding up the approval processes;

• Signing a protocol to permit Indian/Pakistani ships to lift cargo for third countries and eliminating the reciprocal requirement that ships touch a third-country port before bringing in imports. The third-country port restriction particularly affects trade of high-bulk, low-value goods, such as coal, tar, and cement, making their transportation via sea commercially unviable. Also allowing sea shipments in addition to the current Mumbai-Karachi route;

• Eliminating the reciprocal requirement that rail wagons carrying goods across the border return empty, increasing the frequency of rail traffic, and improving the coordination between the railway authorities. Businessmen have suggested restarting the old Sindh-Rajasthan rail link;

• Opening additional border crossings, increasing traffic frequency on the road route through the Wagah border (connecting the major cities of Amritsar and Lahore) and the Khokhrapar-Munabao route, and allowing increased traffic through the Srinagar-Muzzafarabad route, which is currently restricted to only four trucks from either side crossing once a week;

• Opening additional bus routes. In the past a commitment was made to increase the frequency of the cross-Kashmir bus service via the Srinagar-Muzzafarabad route. However, the bus service is only weekly and restricted to passengers who have relatives on the other side of the border;
  
  
• Increasing air links between the two countries. Currently, the only air links agreed are Lahore–New Delhi, Karachi– New Delhi, and Karachi-Mumbai. There is no direct air link between the two capitals (Islamabad–New Delhi);
  
  
• Increasing the number of customs posts where “sensitive” items can be cleared and eliminating requirement for 100 percent verification;
  
  
• Allowing branches of Indian and Pakistani banks to operate in the other country and allowing banks in one country to hold accounts in the currency of the other.
  

Medium Term Measures

• Both Pakistan and India should mutually agree on as limited as possible about the lists of sensitive items. Both Pakistan and India should apply MFN duty rates to items on the sensitive lists.

• India should significantly lower tariff rates for goods of particular interest to Pakistan (e.g., textiles, leather, etc) and remove non tariff barriers. In return, Pakistan should reciprocate by providing MFN status to India and abolishing the list approach of differentiation.

• Pakistan should allow transit trade from India. WTO rules require Pakistan to allow transit trade for all goods to and from third countries (including Afghanistan and the countries in Central Asia). Pakistan views this as problematic because of the risk that goods “dumped” by India in Afghanistan will reenter Pakistan, and as such transit trade from India has been restricted.

• Energy trade between the two countries should be facilitated. The greatest benefit would occur in the sphere of energy cooperation. To start with, the countries could agree on the gas pipeline between Iran and India passing through Pakistan. This would assure India of a regular supply of gas, and Pakistan would earn transit fees (estimated at about $800 million to $ 1 Bn a year), in addition to meeting its own energy needs.

• In the longer term, the development of joint energy grids, particularly in the Punjab-Haryana and Sindh-Rajasthan regions, would create efficiencies through economies of scale and lower energy costs for both countries.

• Both countries should also allow trade in information technology (IT). Despite India being well ahead of Pakistan in this field, both countries could engage in mutually beneficial business-to-business links. Since IT trade does not involve movement of goods, it would be easier to move ahead quickly in this area. For example, Pakistan could allow large Indian IT companies to set up call centers and other IT-related firms, taking advantage of the existing (and growing) English-speaking workforce in Pakistan.

• Both countries should harmonize their customs procedures, including more standardized and transparent documents and inspection procedures and product standards. Also, sanitary and safety laboratory inspections in one country should be accepted in the other.

• Obstacles to FDI flows, other than restrictions based on national security grounds, in both directions should be eased and obtaining government approval streamlined. Each country’s companies should be allowed to float shares in the securities markets of the other, and double taxation on corporate and individual incomes should be removed.

Conclusion

• While these measures for reducing trade barriers proposed in this brief generally have the support of businessmen on both sides of the border, it is critical to build constituencies in each country for greater bilateral trade liberalization.
• The success of the “confidence building” short-term measures and the resulting growth in trade would give a major impetus to the creation of vested interests that would support more far-reaching liberalization of trade between the two countries.
• Only then will the political and bureaucratic opposition to increased India-Pakistan trade be diminished.
• Trade will of course not solve all the problems between the two countries, but it could be an important catalyst in the lowering of tensions.
• And a lowering of tensions between India and Pakistan—an inevitable benefit of strengthened economic ties—would improve the security climate for investment and economic development in both countries.
• It is clearly in the interest of both countries, and the world for that matter,to find a political resolution to the India-Pakistan problem, and increased trade can well be the starting point for this objective.

.
@WAJsal @Horus @Slav Defence @Icarus @Vauban @HRK @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Nihonjin1051 @Khafee @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @SpArK @nair @Manticore @WebMaster @Daneshmand @Oscar @others

Pls do add your comments and views.. After reading Khan Sirs views, it seems to me a honest attempt by him to simplify certain issues which plaguing the hearts of our people in both countries with darkness.. Perhaps, viability of these measures and suitable implementation may help us resolve many issues of our past..

 

[ito]

Until Pakistan forgets Kashmir, any economic relations between India and Pakistan is a non starter

 

[PARIKRAMA]

@Neutron @MaarKhoor @The Eagle @Levina @anant_s @Abingdonboy @Joe Shearer @scorpionx @Chinese-Dragon @New @Serpentine

Until Pakistan forgets Kashmir, any economic relations between India and Pakistan is a non starter

As i said its basically a way of using economic trade to resolve political issues outstanding between both nations.. All outstanding issues including Kashmir.. But via economic trade route, we can decrease the tensions on both sides, show people how mutual benefits exists and create a atmosphere which can lead to finally a political solution to all matters

 

[Sipahi]

Until Pakistan forgets Kashmir, any economic relations between India and Pakistan is a non starter

That's the spirit I like.... there will be no relations with India. Never. Ever.

 

[Maarkhoor]

@PARIKRAMA
No trade no economic relations possible until the core issues exist like Kashmir, Siachen and sircreek etc...Any development or effort to improve economic relations can be sabotage by just single incident in India even in Kashmir, blame will be on Pakistan and every thing comes to again zero point. Gen Pervez Musharraf quite correct in hi analyzes and stance to solve these border issues first.

 

[ito]

@Neutron @MaarKhoor @The Eagle @Levina @anant_s @Abingdonboy @Joe Shearer @scorpionx @Chinese-Dragon @New @Serpentine



As i said its basically a way of using economic trade to resolve political issues outstanding between both nations.. All outstanding issues including Kashmir.. But via economic trade route, we can decrease the tensions on both sides, show people how mutual benefits exists and create a atmosphere which can lead to finally a political solution to all matters

It is a non starter. Here I agree with Pakistani position. Unlike the relations between India and China, relations with India and Pakistan is a poisonous mix of lot of thing. Unless the emotional angle of the relations -which is tied to Kashmir - is reduced there cannot be any movement in economic relations. That is why nothing has moved between India and Pakistan in the past 70 years, and nothing will move in future too until Kashmir is there

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Yet if we continue on this path then both sides people will be the ones who continue to suffer indefinitely..

Perhaps as Khan sir said in the end similar things when he said

• Trade will of course not solve all the problems between the two countries, but it could be an important catalyst in the lowering of tensions.

• And a lowering of tensions between India and Pakistan—an inevitable benefit of strengthened economic ties—would improve the security climate for investment and economic development in both countries.

• It is clearly in the interest of both countries, and the world for that matter,to find a political resolution to the India-Pakistan problem, and increased trade can well be the starting point for this objective

If we keep thinking only from all outstanding issues being the hurdle,we will never be able to cross the bridge for next 700 years.. Will that help both sides people..

What he suggested are not so revolutionary changes but rather small changes .. Like a barber trimming hairs slowly and subtly but you do see a new hair style and a new look..

Thus this thread.. I know what you all said is pretty much the ground reality.. But can we attempt to change it with such ways and means and slowly being about the big change- the will to bring political solution to our disputes..

 

[Taygibay]

Until Pakistan forgets Kashmir, any economic relations between India and Pakistan is a non starter

That's the spirit I like.... there will be no relations with India. Never. Ever.

That attitude is what keeps peace at bay, people! Do note that I did not write -those attitudes- as the balance
expressed shows that both sides suffer from the exact same viewpoint.
PariK just replied as much above in echo of the OP's content.

Since Kashmir is the sticking point, let's use it :

Indeed, possession of that region is at the heart of the problem.
When two sides claim a zone, there are but 4 solutions

1. One of the two wins possession by force. Drawback : war, death and desolation;
2. The disputed territory is split in a Solomon judgement, either by force : war, death, eternal resentment or by settlement : lawyers, imperfect judgement, eternal resentment;​
3. The disputed territory accedes to autonomy. Drawback : both wannabe proprietors lose;​
4. The disputed territory is shared, i.e. awarded special status with specific more functional rules.​

Option 1 has been tried and still is without success. Option 2 is most likely untenable, with its first component
equating to 1 and its second unlikely as neither side is ready to abide by arbitration. Option 3 is unlikely period.

Isn't it time to consider option 4?
Under such a plan, neither of the sides wins outright but then again neither loses outright. What comes out of it
instead is however more than a draw as the territory in question gains : end of war, end of uncertainty, etc.
Under such a plan, the would-be owners also gain, mind you : less money spent on war, less lives lost, etc.

​

The link to be made with the OP is that a stable JK jointly "operated" would be a nexus for trade.
For example, the trade barriers mentioned could remain in place between India and Pakistan but they would be
removed entirely within JK itself. A train from Pakistan arriving or departing would in fact be an internal affair and
so would a train arriving or departing from India. At worst, the two routes would be independent and at best linked.
If they're linked, persons and cargo disembarks one and boards the other to complete a transnational exchange.​

If they're not, the JK town where both meet becomes a powerful trade nexus. Can't invite an enemy CEO for a
contract discussion / signing? Just meet them in the neutral territory!
Thus, further down the road, JK could be allowed supplemental latitude and see joint ventures established that
would benefit from the special status. A JK firm would enjoy minimal hassle in getting permits from each "tutor".
It would establish commercial routes to and fro but each segment would in fact be internal as far as rules & regs.
Virtually speaking, it would constitute a free trade / duty free zone such as found in ports and airports worldwide.

Of course, JK is but one part of the overall dispute. But it could include provisions leading to more stability and
prosperity. For instance, India could accept a moratorium on transit trade to Afghanistan ( that trade volume is
not so high and direct air routes can remain for the essentials ) while Pakistan would open its ports to ships from
Gujarat. The result of this would be positive in terms of cash flow for all ( save poss. for A-Stan, sorry gang ).
Then later, as results from mountains and sea start to show, the mentality would change and similar actions
could be enacted for Rajasthan and Punjab.

The reason why I think this to be a viable solution is simple :
-there is no requirement that either nation abandons potential sovereignty over Kashmir.
In other words, it would be a renewable limited time-frame agreement,
not a renouncement of rights by either.​

There is one more option of course : that a third party nabs JK!
Do either sides really want that?


Good conversation all, Tay.

 

[Aepsilons]

India-Pakistan Trade: A Roadmap for Enhancing Economic Relations

This article is based on extensive articles of Mr Mohsin S Khan where Khan sir has presented with many steps as a part of a strategy to change the dynamics between India and Pakistan. These steps can help tide over the constant issues both nations face while trying to find ways and means for everlasting peace between both of them..

About Mohsin S Khan Sir

Mohsin S. Khan
Biographical Information

July 02, 2014
Mohsin S. Khan, from Pakistan, is the Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Khan holds a B.A. from Punjab University in Pakistan, a B.Sc. in economics from the London School of Economics, an M.A. from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics. He joined the IMF in 1972 as an Economist in the Financial Studies Division of the Research Department, where he held increasingly senior positions, including Advisor, Assistant Director, and Senior Advisor. He was Deputy Director of the Research Department before becoming Director of the IMF Institute in 1996. In 2003 he was appointed Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department of the IMF.

His past experience includes: Visiting Lecturer and Research Fellow at the London School of Economics (1975-76); Adviser to the Central Bank of Venezuela (1976); and Chief of the Macroeconomics Division of the Development Research Department in the World Bank (1985-86). Mr. Khan serves on the editorial boards of ten academic journals. He is a member of the Research Advisory Panel of the South Asia Network of Economic Institutes (SANEI) in India. He is listed in Who's Who in Economics (1986, 1999). In 2003 he was awarded (jointly with A. Mirakhor) the Islamic Development Bank Prize in Islamic Economics for outstanding contributions to the field.

Mr. Khan has published widely on macroeconomic and monetary policies in developing countries, economic growth, international trade and finance, Islamic banking, and IMF programs. He has edited seven books and published numerous articles in the main economics journals.
Mohsin S. Khan -- Biographical Information


+++
Improving economic ties may help to resolve the larger political issues that have be-deviled India-Pakistan overall relations for over 68 years.

This is the theme on which Khan sir proposed steps basically in 2 time frames and neglected the third time frame of Long term measures. -

• Short term (6-12 months time frame)
• Medium term (1-3 years time frame)

His opinion was based on the fact that before thinking anything about long term fundamental reforms, both India and Pakistan need to build public support for trade liberalization.

Initial steps should focus on bilateral measures that can be accomplished relatively easily—by executive order rather than via legislation and with minimal resource implications and that would meaningfully increase trade while gaining support for bigger and bolder steps down the line.

While a few of the measures proposed here fall under the ambit of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and have to be handled in a multilateral setting, most would involve only bilateral agreements between the two countries.

Short-Term Measures

• Easing restrictions on visas, specifically, allowing multiple entry visas for businessmen, eliminating requirements to report arrival to the police at each place of stay, eliminating city-specific visas, and speeding up the approval processes;

• Signing a protocol to permit Indian/Pakistani ships to lift cargo for third countries and eliminating the reciprocal requirement that ships touch a third-country port before bringing in imports. The third-country port restriction particularly affects trade of high-bulk, low-value goods, such as coal, tar, and cement, making their transportation via sea commercially unviable. Also allowing sea shipments in addition to the current Mumbai-Karachi route;

• Eliminating the reciprocal requirement that rail wagons carrying goods across the border return empty, increasing the frequency of rail traffic, and improving the coordination between the railway authorities. Businessmen have suggested restarting the old Sindh-Rajasthan rail link;

• Opening additional border crossings, increasing traffic frequency on the road route through the Wagah border (connecting the major cities of Amritsar and Lahore) and the Khokhrapar-Munabao route, and allowing increased traffic through the Srinagar-Muzzafarabad route, which is currently restricted to only four trucks from either side crossing once a week;

• Opening additional bus routes. In the past a commitment was made to increase the frequency of the cross-Kashmir bus service via the Srinagar-Muzzafarabad route. However, the bus service is only weekly and restricted to passengers who have relatives on the other side of the border;
  
  
• Increasing air links between the two countries. Currently, the only air links agreed are Lahore–New Delhi, Karachi– New Delhi, and Karachi-Mumbai. There is no direct air link between the two capitals (Islamabad–New Delhi);
  
  
• Increasing the number of customs posts where “sensitive” items can be cleared and eliminating requirement for 100 percent verification;
  
  
• Allowing branches of Indian and Pakistani banks to operate in the other country and allowing banks in one country to hold accounts in the currency of the other.

Medium Term Measures

• Both Pakistan and India should mutually agree on as limited as possible about the lists of sensitive items. Both Pakistan and India should apply MFN duty rates to items on the sensitive lists.

• India should significantly lower tariff rates for goods of particular interest to Pakistan (e.g., textiles, leather, etc) and remove non tariff barriers. In return, Pakistan should reciprocate by providing MFN status to India and abolishing the list approach of differentiation.

• Pakistan should allow transit trade from India. WTO rules require Pakistan to allow transit trade for all goods to and from third countries (including Afghanistan and the countries in Central Asia). Pakistan views this as problematic because of the risk that goods “dumped” by India in Afghanistan will reenter Pakistan, and as such transit trade from India has been restricted.

• Energy trade between the two countries should be facilitated. The greatest benefit would occur in the sphere of energy cooperation. To start with, the countries could agree on the gas pipeline between Iran and India passing through Pakistan. This would assure India of a regular supply of gas, and Pakistan would earn transit fees (estimated at about $800 million to $ 1 Bn a year), in addition to meeting its own energy needs.

• In the longer term, the development of joint energy grids, particularly in the Punjab-Haryana and Sindh-Rajasthan regions, would create efficiencies through economies of scale and lower energy costs for both countries.

• Both countries should also allow trade in information technology (IT). Despite India being well ahead of Pakistan in this field, both countries could engage in mutually beneficial business-to-business links. Since IT trade does not involve movement of goods, it would be easier to move ahead quickly in this area. For example, Pakistan could allow large Indian IT companies to set up call centers and other IT-related firms, taking advantage of the existing (and growing) English-speaking workforce in Pakistan.

• Both countries should harmonize their customs procedures, including more standardized and transparent documents and inspection procedures and product standards. Also, sanitary and safety laboratory inspections in one country should be accepted in the other.

• Obstacles to FDI flows, other than restrictions based on national security grounds, in both directions should be eased and obtaining government approval streamlined. Each country’s companies should be allowed to float shares in the securities markets of the other, and double taxation on corporate and individual incomes should be removed.

Conclusion

• While these measures for reducing trade barriers proposed in this brief generally have the support of businessmen on both sides of the border, it is critical to build constituencies in each country for greater bilateral trade liberalization.
• The success of the “confidence building” short-term measures and the resulting growth in trade would give a major impetus to the creation of vested interests that would support more far-reaching liberalization of trade between the two countries.
• Only then will the political and bureaucratic opposition to increased India-Pakistan trade be diminished.
• Trade will of course not solve all the problems between the two countries, but it could be an important catalyst in the lowering of tensions.
• And a lowering of tensions between India and Pakistan—an inevitable benefit of strengthened economic ties—would improve the security climate for investment and economic development in both countries.
• It is clearly in the interest of both countries, and the world for that matter,to find a political resolution to the India-Pakistan problem, and increased trade can well be the starting point for this objective.

.
@WAJsal @Horus @Slav Defence @Icarus @Vauban @HRK @Taygibay @Picdelamirand-oil @Nihonjin1051 @Khafee @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @SpArK @nair @Manticore @WebMaster @Daneshmand @Oscar @others

Pls do add your comments and views.. After reading Khan Sirs views, it seems to me a honest attempt by him to simplify certain issues which plaguing the hearts of our people in both countries with darkness.. Perhaps, viability of these measures and suitable implementation may help us resolve many issues of our past..

@PARIKRAMA ,

A very well written appraisal of the trans-strategic and trans-economic relations between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India. Ideological (religious, secular and constitutional interpretations thereof) nuances are just that -- nuances -- and should be seen with abject organic realism. That is to suppose how relations between Islamabad and Delhi are organic in nature and not static; rivalry is ultimately healthy. Rivalry in absolute military terms imparts on the dualist cultural role of security threats by both nations and levels importance on security for realization of inclusive economic growth. Rivalry in economic terms means that both nations can find niche markets for each other and thereby formalize mechanisms wherein Delhi's own market can complement Islamabad's own export industry, and vice versa. I think the theme of economic integration is critical for us to understand here in context to the two South Asian Powers' relations, with less emphasis on political machinations and political integration theories.

I think in order for India and Pakistan to move past security impasse requires both sides' leadership to operate multidimensionally and beyond historical angst. In fact I believe that any stalwart antagonism to pro developmentalist issues such as economic integration, and security cooperation actually is inhibitive in nature for both nations, which makes up close to 1.5 Billion. One of the most populous regions in the world.

In relativistic terms, any cooperation should be done incrementally. Such cooperation in economics, culture, inter-ministerial, inter-legislative, inter-cabinet, inter-academic, stands to be a bulwark against radical populism present in both nations. This is a positive step.


Regards,
Kenji

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Based on Status Paper prepared by FICCI on India Pakistan Economic Relations (published in 2012)

An old document to understand many nuances.

 

[Armstrong]

@PARIKRAMA ,

A very well written appraisal of the trans-strategic and trans-economic relations between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India. Ideological (religious, secular and constitutional interpretations thereof) nuances are just that -- nuances -- and should be seen with abject organic realism. That is to suppose how relations between Islamabad and Delhi are organic in nature and not static; rivalry is ultimately healthy. Rivalry in absolute military terms imparts on the dualist cultural role of security threats by both nations and levels importance on security for realization of inclusive economic growth. Rivalry in economic terms means that both nations can find niche markets for each other and thereby formalize mechanisms wherein Delhi's own market can complement Islamabad's own export industry, and vice versa. I think the theme of economic integration is critical for us to understand here in context to the two South Asian Powers' relations, with less emphasis on political machinations and political integration theories.

I think in order for India and Pakistan to move past security impasse requires both sides' leadership to operate multidimensionally and beyond historical angst. In fact I believe that any stalwart antagonism to pro developmentalist issues such as economic integration, and security cooperation actually is inhibitive in nature for both nations, which makes up close to 1.5 Billion. One of the most populous regions in the world.

In relativistic terms, any cooperation should be done incrementally. Such cooperation in economics, culture, inter-ministerial, inter-legislative, inter-cabinet, inter-academic, stands to be a bulwark against radical populism present in both nations. This is a positive step.


Regards,
Kenji

Jeez mate thats heavy !

And here I thought you were just a kid from downtown Tokyo who was only interested in Pokemon, Sashimi and Saki !

But on a serious note - Pakistan needs peace....but India is only interested in peace - That disequilibrium doesn't bode well for arrangements to be made on the basis of parity. We will not want to become like any other South Asia country that can be slapped around at will by India nor will India - an up and coming major power - will want to concede parity to a country like Pakistan which is, in truth, still in deep sh*t.

That, I think, is just as big a stumbling block as any historical animosity between the two nations.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

In the same report by FICCI potential area for JVs were also noted

 

[PARIKRAMA]

A big scope is in Energy Cooperation

Look at some of the benefits that Pakistan can have in terms of reduction in cost if imported from India

 

[Aepsilons]

Jeez mate thats heavy !

And here I thought you were just a kid from downtown Tokyo who was only interested in Pokemon, Sashimi and Saki !

But on a serious note - Pakistan needs peace....but India is only interested in peace - That disequilibrium doesn't bode well for arrangements to be made on the basis of parity. We will not want to become like any other South Asia country that can be slapped around at will by India nor will India - an up and coming major power - will want to concede parity to a country like Pakistan which is, in truth, still in deep sh*t.

That, I think, is just as big a stumbling block as any historical animosity between the two nations.

Hehehe, more like a Sapporo boy who has a fondness and taste for Dehli style galubjamon (spelling?) and Karachi style Chicken karahai.

On a serious note tho, my friend @Armstrong , i think the relations between Pakistan and India reminds me of relations between my country and that of China. There is a historical and cultural link, yet at the same time there is heavy securitization in current foreign policy and official rhetoric. Ultimately if we measure relations merely on politic we tend to have an impression of the tone -- which is rather ghastly pessimistic. However we have to go beneath that , delve deeper into the grassroots level cooperation and beyond socially divisive rhetoric by both nations' populist institutions (referring to any heavy Hindu and Islamic demoralizations being unproductive; again this rests on the notion that religious tone should be separated effectively from politics).

I suppose the issue here --- Jammu and Kashmir --- is a divisive topic. In part very similar to Japan and China's own counter-claims in the Senkaku Shotto / Diaoyutais, as well as historical interpretationism. Given -- nationalism is necessary for political economy, however, improper use of nationalism can inadvertently destabilise relations and positive rapproachment processes as what had happened between Tokyo and Beijing in 2012-2013. However, and luckily, that Japan and China has a formal bilateral intergovernmetnalist mechanism in operation, which also extends to direct military channels , means that there are special hotlines for both governments to utilize to calm populist-driven sentiments. Conflict is abated and negated. Effectively and indefinitely. I think the working agenda here is that both Japan and China have effectively 'shelved' the disputes, tho both have continuous maritime security vessels traverse contested zones and both sides implicity recognize and allow the other to do so , for sake of national legitimacy of the other side. I suppose a right trajectory would be for both Pakistan and India to come forward to similar mechanisms , where one can shelve disputes and focus on abridgment processes that can better cultivate confidence on government institutions by the other side. Ultimately, both sides should divorce security agendas from the cultural, economic, social and region-wide integration paradigm.

I am a firm believer and proponent of the Asia-wide One Belt One Road Paradigm, that has been touted and spearheaded by China. I see both Pakistan and India as integral, invaluable partners and members in this paradigm. Perhaps in the future we can hope to see rediscovery of each sides' viewpoints and strategic goals in a mutually inclusive manner. Or at least try.


With deep regards,
Kenji

 

[Nilgiri]

@PARIKRAMA ,

A very well written appraisal of the trans-strategic and trans-economic relations between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India. Ideological (religious, secular and constitutional interpretations thereof) nuances are just that -- nuances -- and should be seen with abject organic realism. That is to suppose how relations between Islamabad and Delhi are organic in nature and not static; rivalry is ultimately healthy. Rivalry in absolute military terms imparts on the dualist cultural role of security threats by both nations and levels importance on security for realization of inclusive economic growth. Rivalry in economic terms means that both nations can find niche markets for each other and thereby formalize mechanisms wherein Delhi's own market can complement Islamabad's own export industry, and vice versa. I think the theme of economic integration is critical for us to understand here in context to the two South Asian Powers' relations, with less emphasis on political machinations and political integration theories.

I think in order for India and Pakistan to move past security impasse requires both sides' leadership to operate multidimensionally and beyond historical angst. In fact I believe that any stalwart antagonism to pro developmentalist issues such as economic integration, and security cooperation actually is inhibitive in nature for both nations, which makes up close to 1.5 Billion. One of the most populous regions in the world.

In relativistic terms, any cooperation should be done incrementally. Such cooperation in economics, culture, inter-ministerial, inter-legislative, inter-cabinet, inter-academic, stands to be a bulwark against radical populism present in both nations. This is a positive step.


Regards,
Kenji

You will be happy to know that the trade has increased even more since your figures in the graph:

Trade between India and Pakistan surges 21% to $2.4 billion - The Express Tribune

If we can directly trade what we are routing through UAE (more than 4 billion, probably around 5 - 6 billion today)....we can get around 8 billion+ in trade between the two countries without much effort and increase it from there.

Pakistan however is very closed to Indian manufactured goods....yet there is still a 4:1 trade balance in favour of India...so I would assume more direct trade will produce a figure of say 2 billion exports from Pakistan to India and 8 billion in other direction in the next few years (if direct trade is allowed to happen).