Pak blocks two key SAARC pacts

[ramu]

SAARC or no SAARC, India will develop and all the countries who have an access to the bulging Indian middle class market will do too. This is an important aspect of today's market realities and is echoed in various bilateral trade relationship. Pakistan expects to have a growth multiplier effect and it is unlikely to get this multiplier effect in isolation. Its access to Chinese markets are considerable. The current trade is valued at $9 Billion. Trade with Iran is $1 Billion at most. With India the trade volume is estimated at 2 Billion. Compare and contrast the figures against someone like Turkey with its neighbours. Obviously Pakistan needs to do more to help itself.

If an Indian points this out, it is unlikely the Pakistanis here will accept but think about this. Is it a better Idea for Pakistan to import from Europe or from India ? Is India not a cheaper option for something such as high quality steel? In the same way, it is profitable for India to import from Pakistan through road instead of shipping it from around the world or for that matter buying it from China at times.

Unless Pakistan realises that trade is not a zero sum game and both parties are set to gain, it is unlikely that any forum such as SAARC will have any effect.


And last, every Indian will agree to the statement below :

India shares a border with Afghanistan and this is not a post to flame the thread but to let everyone know that as long as the core issue of Kashmir remains disputed, this is Indian stand and will remain the same. Irrespective of what Pakistan says, Indian stand remains the same. To solve Kashmir, it is important for Pakistan to recognise that the occupation on the side of Pakistan is as disputed as the Indian or Chinese side.

 

[HAIDER]

removal of non tariff barrier means Pakistan ruined its whole basic industry. Which is already in process of evolution and verge of inflation. If you guys study economic balance between India and Pakistan, you would be surprise even not giving India MFN status, the balance is heavily tilted toward Indian side. And if MFN status mean, say good bye to Pakistani economy.
Pakistanis need to think about to save their economy, Indian just projecting their favored interest.

 

[Contrarian]

SAARC cannot survive without Pakistan. If you think otherwise, have India attempt to create an alternate South Asian cooperation organization without Pakistan and let's see how far it goes. The fact that India hasn't even tried is, in of itself, the answer to your question.

India has already done that...Its called BIMSTEC.
Look it up. Its working. As with most things in the region, it will take a long time to deliver results, but the process has started.

 

[Awesome]

So why is Pakistan in SAARC? What borders does it share with 6 members of that organisation? Easy to be a spoiler, what is it that Pakistan actually brings to the table in this organisation? Karan is probably right about it not being big enough for both India & Pakistan. India will probably just bypass SAARC and deal with free trade agreements on a bilateral basis like it has done with Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, no other way seems possible.

Pakistan would be okay with this if you exclude Afghanistan. Pakistan has a very legitimate concern. You guys come in and pay terrorists in Afghanistan to suicide bomb in Pakistan.

Remove India or Afghanistan from this plan and you have a go .

 

[karan.1970]

. Pakistan has a very legitimate concern. You guys come in and pay terrorists in Afghanistan to suicide bomb in Pakistan.

.

Is this information coming from similar sources that tell me that you guys pay terrorists in Pakistan administered Kashmir to perform terrorist activities all over India..??

 

[karan.1970]

@ karan.1970

I was never a fan of Musharafs policies, but what do you think of his proposal related to the partition of Kashmir into 2 with the Muslim Majority north going to Pakistan and the Predominantly Hindu into India where as the Vally as an independent entity. I believe that this is the best possible solution to the whole problem.

My view is that niether side will accept any redrawing of boundaries. India specifically will not accept any division based on religion since that negates the secular stand of India.

The Musharraf solution that works best is what has been talked about in a lot of media channels recently with a highly autonomous Kashmir with a porous Line of Control (converted to IB). This while the present positions being maintained from a country's borders perspective.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan expects to have a growth multiplier effect and it is unlikely to get this multiplier effect in isolation. Its access to Chinese markets are considerable. The current trade is valued at $9 Billion. Trade with Iran is $1 Billion at most. With India the trade volume is estimated at 2 Billion. Compare and contrast the figures against someone like Turkey with its neighbours. Obviously Pakistan needs to do more to help itself.

If an Indian points this out, it is unlikely the Pakistanis here will accept but think about this. Is it a better Idea for Pakistan to import from Europe or from India ? Is India not a cheaper option for something such as high quality steel? In the same way, it is profitable for India to import from Pakistan through road instead of shipping it from around the world or for that matter buying it from China at times.

Unless Pakistan realises that trade is not a zero sum game and both parties are set to gain, it is unlikely that any forum such as SAARC will have any effect.

Trade is not a zero sum game, and limited trade in certain approved items will find few opponents. However, the main point of an economic bloc like SAARC, where nations can trade freely across borders, is the access to a larger combined market. Within SAARC India is the largest market, and, from the Pakistani perspective, so long as Indian non-tarrif barriers make many Pakistani products uncompetitive in the Indian market, there is no advantage to being part of an economic FT bloc such as SAARC.

Take India out of the FT equation, continue limited trade with it, and construct bilateral FTA's with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, under which tarrif and non-tarrif barriers are taken out, and Pakistan ends up with essentially the same situation it has right now.

Hence the argument that there is no major advantage for Pakistan, currently, to focus on trade under SAARC.

To solve Kashmir, it is important for Pakistan to recognise that the occupation on the side of Pakistan is as disputed as the Indian or Chinese side.

You must be confused - Pakistan already recognizes the entire territory as disputed by virtue of continuing to accept the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir as a means of resolving the dispute. It is India that ha to come to terms with reality and develop a mindset to resolve the dispute.

But in any case, this is not a Kashmir thread, and there was no need to go off on this tangent following Karan's post. Stick with trade please.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

No offence but i think the pic im posting represents the delusional personality of india.MODs am i right?

No offence to anyone.

 

[TechLahore]

India has already done that...Its called BIMSTEC.
Look it up. Its working. As with most things in the region, it will take a long time to deliver results, but the process has started.

Non starter.

 

[TechLahore]

Best of luck to you, you work your way in the SCO and leave SAARC alone.

No. India will not be left alone within SAARC or any other forum for that matter. Just as India leaves no opportunity to take an anti-Pakistan position, e.g. the recent nuclear summit, Pakistan will counter every move India makes until and unless the disputes dating back to 1947 are resolved. The sooner these are resolved, the better for everyone involved.

And why is that? Pakistan anyone?

That is precisely my point. Pakistan's diplomatic initiatives have resulted in anti-India OIC resolutions - which represents the voice of over 50 countries - for 41 years. If Pakistan's diplomatic potential was limited, this feat would not be possible. And again, while you may dismiss the OIC, clearly the Indian government's repeated attempts to somehow enter the fold demonstrate that the GoI does indeed care about these resolutions and the position the OIC takes.

I can never understand this. Why does India want to be a member of the Organisation of Islamic Countries? We are not one and anyways the secular nature of the Indian constitution should mean that we don't become members of organisations with a religious bias. Most Indians would not want to be in that organisation anyways.

Because the GoI is perturbed by the diplomatic condemnation of its moves in Kashmir and elsewhere by an organization that speaks for over 50 countries. And it is trying to somehow get co-opted to 'work the system' from within. In 41 years of trying, it hasn't succeeded yet.

And only a fool would overestimate it either.

To be fair, you won't find many serious Pakistanis overestimating themselves on this forum. On the other hand, supposedly educated and supposedly serious Indian participants are self-congratulatory too often. The reality of India and Pakistan is that these are two countries with a lot of potential. But both are very far from realizing that potential. India is not a superpower, nor is it close to becoming one.

And yet none of them(exclude Burma) blocked the agreement. Pakistan did. Should tell you something, should it not?

Why shoot a dead man? The agreement was history, why would the other participants bother to block a blocked agreement. If you are trying to suggest that all the SAARC bloc countries other than Pakistan have excellent relations with India then we're not buying that. Yes, the smaller countries maintain a balance with India, but there's been plenty of occasions that show that they're pretty fed-up with overbearing Indian policies too. Bangladesh is just a little less vocal these days because not-so-Hasina Sheikh is in power. I need not remind you that Bangladesh and India have often had border tensions. And I also need not remind you that Sri Lanka has claimed that India assisted terrorists on Sri Lankan soil for years upon years. Clean record of blossoming friendships? I think not.

They are trying, whatever your opinion on its relevance.

As I said earlier, non-starter. Let's waste our time worrying about bimstech when it develops into something worth slightly more than the paper its charter is printed on.

 

[ramu]

Trade is not a zero sum game, and limited trade in certain approved items will find few opponents. However, the main point of an economic bloc like SAARC, where nations can trade freely across borders, is the access to a larger combined market. Within SAARC India is the largest market, and, from the Pakistani perspective, so long as Indian non-tarrif barriers make many Pakistani products uncompetitive in the Indian market, there is no advantage to being part of an economic FT bloc such as SAARC.

AM, I agree to few of your thoughts but let me express where I differ.
Thanks for recognising the large and potentially lucrative Indian market. Now let me focus on the trade between India and Pakistan and split your concerns about the protectionist sentiment. You argument is simplistic and let me explain why.

Indian trade volume with Bangladesh in 2009 was 4 Billion, double the trade with Pakistan. Indian trade with China was 50 Billion even after a dip of 29% due to economic downturn. Pakistan is one of the countries that has a huge demand for Indian products from cosmetics to liquor. But most of the goods are traded in the black market that never come to the rescue of official figures. This rob's Pakistan and India of taxes that if earned could be well utilised by the centres.

About the protectionist philosophy you spoke about. No country in this world will go out of its way and provide its market for another country without having inherent benefits. Indian approach to BD's textile industry was limited and with the passage of time, the exposure of Indian market to BD goods has increased. BD has earned from this relationship though not many in this forum will look closely at the figures and credit the government. Consider the hot-cold relationship with China. China's currency is deflated and is known around the world for securing an uneven platform that favours the Chinese. This has not stopped India from trading with China as the inherent cost advantage in infrastructure projects that are executed with a strict measure of quality have yielded results and given more bang for the buck. India in a way is using the Chinese delivery system to its advantage. However, India has concerns about the growing trade deficit between the two countries and the centres are addressing this issue. However, Pakistan is left out of the mix due to its inherent philosophy of the zero sum game. You may disagree with me but an unconscious view held by Pakistan is that if something is beneficial to India, that is in essence not good for Pakistan. I will be happy to know if that is not the case but as long as actions do not translate to words, I will hold on to my belief.

Take India out of the FT equation, continue limited trade with it, and construct bilateral FTA's with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, under which tarrif and non-tarrif barriers are taken out, and Pakistan ends up with essentially the same situation it has right now.

Hence the argument that there is no major advantage for Pakistan, currently, to focus on trade under SAARC.

Again this is where I see the problem. If Pakistan continues to play hard ball, it will never get access to the Indian market. It is another issue if it is not interested in the market in the first place. However, listen to the automotive manufacturers in your country. They are longing to get a foot hold in the Indian market. Be in the system to change the system is apt here. If India and Pakistan have to improve trade relationship just consult the recent report prepared by the well wishers of Pakistan about trade with India. It is not good to miss an opportunity of the century when the middle-class in India is set to triple in the next two decades.

You must be confused - Pakistan already recognizes the entire territory as disputed by virtue of continuing to accept the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir as a means of resolving the dispute. It is India that ha to come to terms with reality and develop a mindset to resolve the dispute.

But in any case, this is not a Kashmir thread, and there was no need to go off on this tangent following Karan's post. Stick with trade please.

Good that the stand taken by Karan is vindicated. He said that Indian stand is that Kashmir is an integral part of India and therefore by virtue of this stand, Afghanistan is one of our neighbours.

Anyways, lets move on.

 

[TechLahore]

My view is that niether side will accept any redrawing of boundaries. India specifically will not accept any division based on religion since that negates the secular stand of India.

PLEASE! Why did you agree to the pre-partition division of Punjab and Bengal on religious lines then? You might want to voluntarily cede those areas to Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively.

After having forcibly taken over Hyderabad, forcibly invaded Junagarh after it acceded to Pakistan, messing around in the Runn of Kutch, accepting the division of provinces on religious lines, being the ones who brought communalism to pre-partition politics (Jaswant Singh's book anyone?), being the ones who rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan and finally, being the ones that accepted the decision of a Prince on accession in one case (Kashmir) and not on independence in the other (Hyderabad), you really have no locus standi on this issue.

So yes, you talking about an imaginary Indian border with Afghanistan was absolutely a flame. Zaid Hamid can clarify for you what the jingoistic response from a Pakistani would be. I don't care for your position or Zaid Hamid's, frankly.

 

[ramu]

PLEASE! Why did you agree to the pre-partition division of Punjab and Bengal on religious lines then? You might want to voluntarily cede those areas to Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively.

After having forcibly taken over Hyderabad, forcibly invaded Junagarh after it acceded to Pakistan, messing around in the Runn of Kutch, accepting the division of provinces on religious lines, being the ones who brought communalism to pre-partition politics (Jaswant Singh's book anyone?), being the ones who rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan and finally, being the ones that accepted the decision of a Prince on accession in one case (Kashmir) and not on independence in the other (Hyderabad), you really have no locus standi on this issue.

So yes, you talking about an imaginary Indian border with Afghanistan was absolutely a flame. Zaid Hamid can clarify for you what the jingoistic response from a Pakistani would be. I don't care for your position or Zaid Hamid's, frankly.

Mr. Mod, Start a new thread and I will answer. Can we stick to the topic please ... it is already diluted.

 

[TechLahore]

Mr. Mod, Start a new thread and I will answer. Can we stick to the topic please ... it is already diluted.

No need to start another thread. Just needed to get that out of my system. The comment that started all of this was not necessary and in poor taste, in my opinion. I'm done with that element of the discussion

 

[Bang Galore]

No. India will not be left alone within SAARC or any other forum for that matter. Just as India leaves no opportunity to take an anti-Pakistan position, e.g. the recent nuclear summit, Pakistan will counter every move India makes until and unless the disputes dating back to 1947 are resolved. The sooner these are resolved, the better for everyone involved.

My point exactly. India needs to work around this precisely because of this attitude. If someone like you takes this position, then we may as well kiss all hopes of SAARC being allowed to reach its potential or at the very least make a start towards that end, goodbye.

I disagree with the analogy drawn by you on the nuclear summit. I think the points raised by India were about the subject under discussion not as in SAARC where Pakistan keeps interjecting bilateral issues in a forum which explicitly disallows that.

On the other hand, supposedly educated and supposedly serious Indian participants are self-congratulatory too often. The reality of India and Pakistan is that these are two countries with a lot of potential. But both are very far from realizing that potential. India is not a superpower,

Agree.

nor is it close to becoming one.

Depends on the definition of close.

India is attempting to realise its potential while Pakistan with its obsession with resolving all issues with India before moving forward with trade seems determined in cutting of its nose to spite the face. India has FTA's with Sri Lanka and with Thailand. They would not be agreeing to FTA's if they did not think that they would stand to benefit from India's market.Contrast that with the Pakistani attitude.

Why shoot a dead man? The agreement was history, why would the other participants bother to block a blocked agreement. If you are trying to suggest that all the SAARC bloc countries other than Pakistan have excellent relations with India then we're not buying that. Yes, the smaller countries maintain a balance with India, but there's been plenty of occasions that show that they're pretty fed-up with overbearing Indian policies too. Bangladesh is just a little less vocal these days because not-so-Hasina Sheikh is in power. I need not remind you that Bangladesh and India have often had border tensions. And I also need not remind you that Sri Lanka has claimed that India assisted terrorists on Sri Lankan soil for years upon years. Clean record of blossoming friendships? I think not.

This argument is more than a bit of a stretch. If your argument is that they are happy to allow Pakistan to do their work for them, then the very same countries would not show interest in joining BIMSTEC, an organisation that includes all of them but excludes Pakistan.

As I said earlier, non-starter. Let's waste our time worrying about bimstech when it develops into something worth slightly more than the paper its charter is printed on.

So you keep saying but at the very least it has a chance to suceed since most of the countries want to actually trade rather then prevent it.