Pakistan rupee exchange rate news

[p2prada]

I am in support of requiring a certain percentage of any Indian products coming to Pakistan to be manufactured in Pakistan, but we shall see how that goes.

Actually, that will be quite difficult because manufacturing in india is cheaper than that in pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan enjoyed the privilage of friends in 1965, compared to india. Mainly cause of Nehruvian beliefs in NAM. The UNSC resolutions have always been one sided. India was holding all the cards when the resolutions were made. But, pakistan had all the right friends which obviously pushed to pak's favour.
India decided to escalate only cause we knew pak did not have the resources to continue the war after that. Plus, it helped get international attention which pak did not like as much as india did.

The failed uprisings also go on to indicate that the kashmiris were more interested in being part of india.

That is just speculation - absolutely no facts to back it up. Unless you can provide some hard evidence to validate your claim that a country a year old had enough clout in the UN to get the majority of nations to twist the reality of the situation and pass a resolution favoring Pakistan, and then also force India to accept it, this is a fairy tale you raise.

The fact is that India took the dispute to the UN, and willingly agreed to the resolutions. That the UNSC decision was correct is validated by the condition of plebiscite attached to the Instrument of Accession, which is the basis of India's claim to J&K. SO the UNSC resolutions essentially validate the condition of that plebiscite, and laid out a mechanism to implement it, which India reneged on later.

Quite frankly if India believed that the Kashmiris weer on its side then it should have conducted the plebiscite, and followed its international obligations and agreements. Instead it unilaterally chose to walk out from the agreed upon mechanism of dispute resolution, leaving Pakistan with no choice but to attempt covert means to try and force the issue.

Militarily, it was a stalemate. But, pakistan lost a lot of foreign support after that. You dont go to war just cause the other party walks away from the table. It just means the warring faction was the aggressor.

I agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that going to war was not a good idea, mostly because we know now that the wars were primarily stalemates, and neither side really had the resources to carry out a military campaign long enough to post a decisive victory. However I must point out again that the idea was not to go to war in 1965, but to initiate an insurrection in kashmir that would force India back to table. The escalation was India's decision. This also occurred in an era when the West had extensively utilized covert ops. to advance policies.

10 million refugees, roughly half of of australia's population, run away to india. Do u know why this happened? People running away from their own country, that too into another country already with around 200 million in poverty. The refugees and the request for help from political establishments in east pak gave enough credibility for indian invasion.

If you are trying to use the refugee crisis as an excuse for why India initiated war in 1971, the that is flawed. We have pointed out in threads elsewhere that Indian planning for war and covert support for militants in East Pakistan existed a long time before the refugee numbers were anywhere close to unmanageable. The timeline also indicates that the worst of th refugee crisis, and the worsening situation in East Pakistan, came about after Indian support for the insurgents in EP had started. So while the underlying issues were indeed Pakistan's fault, the explosion of the situation beyond the point of no return owed a lot Indian interventionism.

Corruption, mismanagement, weak democratic institutions exist in india too. Why else do u think we have states like UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan. These are some of our most backward states. Farmers in Punjab, Haryana etc enjoy the usage of touch screens and access to the internet while the farmers in MP commit suicide due to debts. why do u think India is home to poverty, hunger, disease etc. Military dictatorships just give the EXCUSE of social degradation instead of other ulterior motives to seize power. EG: Pakistan's military spending always go UP during military regimes. How is that going to help?

Even with 33 years of military rule, poverty rate in pak has not declined while at the same time india's poverty declined to 24% from the post independence figure of 55%.

None of the military regimes before mush have made any significant contribution towards pakistans economy. Any progress was made only through american aid.

Mush came to power immediately after the loss during the kargil war. The political unrest over kashmir was the reason Mush came to power. Yahya khan lost power in 1971 after the loss in east pakistan. So, the dictators came to power or lost power because of their relationship with india.

The recent zardari govt made an announcement that pak's defence budget will become more transparent and will not rise any further for sometime. This is the first time a democratically elected govt in pak has ever challenged the military head on.

Pakistani institutions have always been weaker because of the lack of widespread democratic traditions and the traditional stranglehold of the Feudals and Sardars on the political scene. As well as the stranglehold economically of these people due to Pakistan not having any industry to speak off, and therefore overwhelmingly an agricultural country.

India may have had similar challenges, but it was better off and more diverse economically and politically, which gave enough room for democracy to flourish. Again, you keep trying to argue as if I am defending military intervention, which I am not. I am merely pointing out that the arguments advanced by proponents of military intervention had little to do with Kashmir or India, and more to do with a failure of the civilian governments and the perceived threat to Pakistan from their policies.

Your figures on the poverty rate in Pakistan are completely wrong:

At the time of independence some 60 per cent of the population lived in absolute poverty, a condition of life in which the basic needs of those who are affected by it are not fulfilled.

Growth, poverty & politics

Poverty in 2007 I believe was somewhere in the region of thirty percent.

Examples of Mush and Yahya should be enough.

Mush and Yahya are examples of the results of a failed political elite, in the latter case an intervention was precipitated by the hijacking of an airplane and threatening the lives of hundreds of passengers. Along with kargil, there was also the economic turmoil due to bad economic policies (such as freezing FE accounts) that led to the military intervention. I fail to see how India or Kashmir are the cause here.

Yahya Khan lost power in 1971, but any civilian ruler would also have lost power after a debacle like that. That is a flawed argument, and plus, it does not address your point that military intervention occurred because of India or Kashmir.

I appreciate Indians trying to take all the blame for Pakistan's periodic messes, but you really are giving yourself too much credit.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree, there is no economy on earth with a bigger market than india and china. But, calling pak's market "small" is not entirely justified. Pak will soon become the 5th largest by population in the world.

Today the situation is different - I am referring to the Pakistan immediately following Independence, that had no industry and was almost entirely an agricultural country.

In that situation free trade with India would not necessarily have allowed for Pakistani industry to develop. Strong protectionist economic policies would have been needed, but then that would mean we would not have had open trade with India, so we are back to where we started - which is that a lack of trade with India historically has not hurt Pakistan.

Actually, that will be quite difficult because manufacturing in india is cheaper than that in pakistan.

Which validates my point, that open free trade with India would not have benefited Pakistan, and will not necessarily do so now.

Whether it is cheaper or not, I believe that Pakistan should serve its interests first, and if Indian companies are interested in making money in the Pakistani market, they should be required by Pakistan to produce a large percentage of their products in Pakistan. India is following similar policies in its defense acquisitions for example, of local offsets.

 

[p2prada]

That is just speculation - absolutely no facts to back it up. Unless you can provide some hard evidence to validate your claim that a country a year old had enough clout in the UN to get the majority of nations to twist the reality of the situation and pass a resolution favoring Pakistan, and then also force India to accept it, this is a fairy tale you raise.

Firstly, India has never supported or has never been supported by a foreign power till the soviets came to the rescue in 1960s. India had destroyed too many alliances through the NAM movt especially in Africa and Latin America. Why do u think right now there is very little US and Russian presence in AFRICA while there is so much of chinese and indian influence there. Secondly, the fact that another big country starts progressing means more headache for them, be it US or russia.
All UN resolutions made between india and pakistan till date have been against india. Why else do u think india has been pushing for bilateral negotiations while pak has been pushing for trilateral negotiations along with the US. The talks will again go to paks favour with US involvement.
This kept India confined in south asia for the last 50 years, which was good for the other countries too. Only the 2008 Indo-US deal has successfully dehyphenated india from pak.

Right now, the conditions are such that, if pak moved to the UN against india. The resolution will go into india's favour. It is because of US and russian interests in India which are more positive than negative.

The fact is that India took the dispute to the UN, and willingly agreed to the resolutions. That the UNSC decision was correct is validated by the condition of plebiscite attached to the Instrument of Accession, which is the basis of India's claim to J&K. SO the UNSC resolutions essentially validate the condition of that plebiscite, and laid out a mechanism to implement it, which India reneged on later.

You actually believe that a population can "vote" for independence from another country. It has never happened in 5000 years and it never can. Look at the case of taiwan. Even with a highly educated population, they cannot just VOTE themselves free. Freedom can only come from bilateral negotiations. If we go to a third party (like UN or US), the end effect will be one country wins while the other loses. That must not happen. Bilateral negotiations ensure that both party wins and loses equally and this is the only way to go about kashmir.
Look at the Balighar project. Is pakistan happy with the UN resolution????

Quite frankly if India believed that the Kashmiris weer on its side then it should have conducted the plebiscite, and followed its international obligations and agreements. Instead it unilaterally chose to walk out from the agreed upon mechanism of dispute resolution, leaving Pakistan with no choice but to attempt covert means to try and force the issue.

Gandhi said that even if a large section of the population supports something. It is not necessary that they are always right in supporting it. Look at the current situation on pak. Pak citizens are blaming the same leaders they have elected to power. What makes you think a war torn region will actually make the right decision??

Voting in india or pakistan has never been fool proof. There has been seizing of ballot, riots, etc. The same thing will continue in kashmir. Do u remember that the last elections in kashmir which were proved to be free and fair by a number of UN analysts, the vote turnover was only 44%. If the plebiscite was accepted by both india and pakistan, then it is also required that the population under plebiscite should have had some education. The population of kashmir has been fed propaganda from both india and pak. Their decision will tend to go wrong rather than right.

If you are trying to use the refugee crisis as an excuse for why India initiated war in 1971, the that is flawed. We have pointed out in threads elsewhere that Indian planning for war and covert support for militants in East Pakistan existed a long time before the refugee numbers were anywhere close to unmanageable. The timeline also indicates that the worst of th refugee crisis, and the worsening situation in East Pakistan, came about after Indian support for the insurgents in EP had started. So while the underlying issues were indeed Pakistan's fault, the explosion of the situation beyond the point of no return owed a lot Indian interventionism.

I only said that the refugee crisis gave india the "reason" to invade. The prospect of war will only increase the flow of refugees. Mind you, the people were leaving east pakistan to "safer" places. The refugees had always expected india to walk into east pak.

India only used the "for greater good" to split pak into 2.

Pakistani institutions have always been weaker because of the lack of widespread democratic traditions and the traditional stranglehold of the Feudals and Sardars on the political scene. As well as the stranglehold economically of these people due to Pakistan not having any industry to speak off, and therefore overwhelmingly an agricultural country.

There were a lot of industries in india and pak at the time of independence. The case was, raw materials and industries were on different sides of the border. I have posted this elsewhere in the forum. Jute plantations were in west bengal while jute industries were in Bangladesh. Because of non existence of trade laws, the industries suffered from non existence of raw materials. The lack of industry across the borders was mutual. Both countries suffered.
The only difference was Nehru did more for india than the pakistani leaders did for pakistan. For eg, Nehru was hell bent on creating india a knowledge superpower and tried his best to provide good education. Thats the reason institutions like IIT, IIM, IISC etc were set up. Also, political instability was more widespread in india due to india's expansionist policies within india, like hyderabad, manipur, nagaland etc. India and pakistan, both started on a similar level.

India may have had similar challenges, but it was better off and more diverse economically and politically, which gave enough room for democracy to flourish. Again, you keep trying to argue as if I am defending military intervention, which I am not. I am merely pointing out that the arguments advanced by proponents of military intervention had little to do with Kashmir or India, and more to do with a failure of the civilian governments and the perceived threat to Pakistan from their policies.

I know that you dont support military intervention. You already made your point clear. I was only saying that social degradation wasnt the reason the military came to power as you claimed (or more likely the military claims). Failure of civilian govt in the social front doesnt mean that the military was any more successful, since there was minimal change.

Your figures on the poverty rate in Pakistan are completely wrong:
At the time of independence some 60 per cent of the population lived in absolute poverty, a condition of life in which the basic needs of those who are affected by it are not fulfilled.

Growth, poverty & politics

Poverty in 2007 I believe was somewhere in the region of thirty percent.

These are not my words.

My exact words were
Even with 33 years of military rule, poverty rate in pak has not declined while at the same time india's poverty declined to 24% from the post independence figure of 55%.

I am only trying to prove that social degradation is NOT the cause for military intervention in politics in pakistan. It is only given as an excuse to take power.

Mush and Yahya are examples of the results of a failed political elite, in the latter case an intervention was precipitated by the hijacking of an airplane and threatening the lives of hundreds of passengers. Along with kargil, there was also the economic turmoil due to bad economic policies (such as freezing FE accounts) that led to the military intervention. I fail to see how India or Kashmir are the cause here.

But whats the point is saying economic policies were the cause. Except for Mush all other dictators FAILED in pretty much everything that the civilian govt failed in. They only gave economic causes to seize power. They never actually did anything to alleviate hunger or poverty. No self repecting military govt will say they came to power because of the adversary.

Yahya Khan lost power in 1971, but any civilian ruler would also have lost power after a debacle like that. That is a flawed argument, and plus, it does not address your point that military intervention occurred because of India or Kashmir.

Everytime a dictator came to power, there was war against india. Everytime a dictator left, pakistan would be worse off than it was before.
Military intervention doesnot occur because of india. But, India is a major cause for militay intervention along with a host of other causes.

I appreciate Indians trying to take all the blame for Pakistan's periodic messes, but you really are giving yourself too much credit.

Sorry, but I dont take pride in that.

 

[p2prada]

I forgot to mention one more important point about the UN resolution.

The resolution stated complete withdrawal of Pak troops from Jammu and Kashmir and to not interfere in kashmir politics. This was obviously not upheld by pakistan.

 

[p2prada]

Which validates my point, that open free trade with India would not have benefited Pakistan, and will not necessarily do so now.

So, a chinese FTA will benefit pak. They have poisoned milk and Lead paint. Pak will never cease to have stomach problems. They will only dump their products in pak like they are doing in india.

Whether it is cheaper or not, I believe that Pakistan should serve its interests first, and if Indian companies are interested in making money in the Pakistani market, they should be required by Pakistan to produce a large percentage of their products in Pakistan. India is following similar policies in its defense acquisitions for example, of local offsets.

True, but it depends on what incentives pakistan is willing to offer to attract FDI. A new economic policy is in the making in paksitan. Lets see what it has to offer.

 

[dr.umer]

SBP spurred rupee goes up​

Monday, October 20, 2008

KARACHI: The State Bank Of Pakistan on Monday pumped 200 million dollars into the market to bolster the Rupee against Dollar, which followed the national currency gaining strength and recovering Rs2 against the greenback.

According to details, at the beginning of trading today, the dollar traded at Rs83.80 after witnessing an increase of paisa 60. SBP on this occasion intervened into the market by pumping in about $200 million, which saw the value of dollar going down nearly Rs3. However, at the end of inter-bank trading, the dollar eroded by Rs2, closed at RS81.20.

 

[Imran Khan]

sir its efect also reserve of pakistan 200mn$ is from our reserves

 

[Always Neutral]

I think finally Pakistan will go to the IMF and come back with money but the terms will be very bad.

Regards

 

[Imran Khan]

I think finally Pakistan will go to the IMF and come back with money but the terms will be very bad.

Regards

sir its going same way of 90s.we were 1st natin wich comeout from imf progirams.

 

[Always Neutral]

sir its going same way of 90s.we were 1st natin wich comeout from imf progirams.

Yes but at that time there was no global financial crisis of that kind. I just read on the net that supermarkets have started tagging meats with RIFD tags as thieves are now targetting food rations which shows how desperate the situation in Europe is.

Best Regards

 

[dr.umer]

Situation is really alarming. Most of "big economies" are suffering due to global financial crises so looks like Pakistan will have to go to IMF.

 

[Imran Khan]

Situation is really alarming. Most of "big economies" are suffering due to global financial crises so looks like Pakistan will have to go to IMF.

what can pakistan do sir.i thing we don't sceared from IMF .before we take loan from them .now we take loan and our chailds will pay that

 

[pkpatriotic]

Rupee against dollar once more under pressure
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

KARACHI: The value of rupee against dollar once more seen struggling under severe pressure since last two days, following yesterday’s index ‘floor’ removal from the stock markets, as the inter-bank dollar exchange rate cross passed the psychological barrier of Rs80.

Rupee once more continued to depreciate in the inter-bank and local markets after nearly a month long thaw, which saw the dollar breaching even the Rs80level and was selling at Rs80.30.

 

[Kumar]

Pakistani Brokers Face Default Risk as Stocks Plunge

Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan’s National Clearing Co., which handles all of the nation’s stock transactions, said a 10th of brokers are at risk of defaulting on share payments after the benchmark index plunged 24 percent in seven days.

“Around 20 brokers from the Karachi Stock Exchange are heading for default,” Mohammed Shoaib Memon, a National Clearing board member, said in an interview today. There are 200 brokers at the Karachi Stock Exchange.

The benchmark Karachi Stock Exchange 100 index fell for a seventh day to a three-year low today following the easing of trading limits on Dec. 15. Brokers are facing defaults after a court in the Karachi ordered them to each provide 50 million rupees ($634,000) of bank guarantees on share purchases.

The Karachi Stock Exchange on Dec. 15 ended a four-month- old restriction on stock trading aimed at preventing the key index from falling below its Aug. 27 level. The regulator kept a rule preventing the gauge from falling more than 5 percent.

The curbs were imposed a month after investors threw stones and smashed windows at Karachi’s stock exchange to protest the worst losing streak in at least 18 years.

The Karachi 100’s gains diminished this year -- after rising 11-fold when the economy expanded at least 4.7 percent a year between the end of 2001 and 2007 -- as the global credit freeze sent the rupee to a record low, the balance of payments deficit expanded to its widest level ever and inflation rose to a 30-year high. The rupee has fallen 22 percent this year, the worst-performing Asian currency after the South Korean won.

Citigroup Inc. predicted a slump of as much as 50 percent after the end to trading limits. The benchmark index has declined 49 percent this year, on course to complete its worst annual performance in 10 years.