Pakistan - transition to democracy

By Fazal Mehmood

Elections in Pakistan leading to the defeat of President, Pervez Musharraf's Party PML-Q, and victory of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-N led by the husband of the slain Benazir Bhutto, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, and Mr. Nawaz Sharif, respectively, has thrown up many imponderable questions for which there are very few answers. Will Pakistan be a stable democratic country, or, once again be ruled by the army? This question arises in the backdrop of 3As-Allah, Army and America. The present army chief, General Pervez Kayani has ruled out future involvement of the army in civil administration of the country. But it is necessary to know more about the political ambitions of his predecessor, who has shed his uniform and is currently the President of Pakistan.
Pervez Musharraf, the mohajir migrant from Delhi, is the biggest enigma in the subcontinent's contemporary history. Is he a visionary who aspires to transform his country in such a way that history records him as the greatest Pakistani since Mohammad Ali Jinnah? Is he the biggest opportunist and short-term tactician Pakistan has had the misfortune of seeing as its President? Is he a moderniser on the lines of Kemal Ataturk whom he often describes as his role model? Is he an interloper and pretender who, chameleon-like, can change colour to suit the environment? Is he a statesman who believes in working untiringly to herald peace in Pakistan? Is he the last hope for Pakistan that remains on the brink of social and economic collapse? Is he an adventurer who skilfully exploits his countrymen's artificially engineered passion for Kashmir to consolidate authority? Is he a thinker, reformer, soldier rolled into one-the answer to Pakistan's prayer for a sincere, incorruptible leader? Is he a superficial Johnny-come-lately with the gift of the gab, who is feathering his own nest under the veneer of sincerity and transparency only to manoeuvre electoral endorsement and legitimacy as Pakistan's President?
The present election has opened a window of opportunity for Pakistan's transition to democracy. It is just possible that a good section of the army will recognise the writing on the wall and retreat in favour of Pakistan's civil society. Despite the alloyed nature of democracy in Pakistan, a substantial section of the middle class has flowered to provide leadership to civil society. The politicians, lawyers and journalists of Pakistan possess both competence and integrity. This civil society, through the courts and media, has been battling the army by opposing President Musharraf who still represents the face of the army. Will General Kayani change that perception?
There are the fundamentalists who believe in Islamic orthodoxy and provide a rich recruiting ground to Al Qaida for spreading terrorism. These fundamentalists study in madrasas and sympathize with the calls for jihad made by terrorist leaders and by the clerics patronised by them. The fundamentalists are against any kind of democracy. They identify America as the source of pollution in their culture and religion. The lifestyle and current aspirations of the fundamentalists, concentrated mostly in NWFP, are markedly different from those of civil society in Punjab and Sind. This can create a serious kind of separatism that could lead eventually to balkanization.
The terrorists comprise followers of Al Qaida, Lashkar-e-Toiba and other groups that are united in service of a common cause. To widen their base among the fundamentalists they play on anti-US sentiments by capitalizing on each blunder by the Bush administration and by the Pakistan Government. The terrorists are spread across Pakistan's tribal belt and in Afghanistan. They comprise Pashtuns recruited by the Taliban, and foreign mercenaries commanded by Al Qaida.
It was within these complex conditions that Musharraf, directed by western powers, was expected to eliminate terrorism and turn Pakistan into a full-fledged democracy. The US brokered on arrangement between Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and the army successor to Musharraf, General Kayani. That arrangement collapsed when Pakistan's judiciary veered around to debar Musharraf constitutionally from continuing as President. So Musharraf imposed the Emergency and justified it by pointing to the threat of terrorism, and he clamped Emergency in the country as a survival kit. It is difficult to conceive of any arrangement ensuring durable peace without providing self-rule and non-interference in the daily lives of the Pashtun community spread across Pakistan and Afghanistan. And one can conceive of only one arrangement that does not alter present international borders: an arrangement that involves formation in South Asia of an EU-style union.
India can take the initiative to facilitate such a formation. India for its own security has a huge stake in a stable and democratic Pakistan. The problem of ethnic communities divided by international borders bequeathed by imperialism applies as much to Kashmir as to the Federally Administered Territorial Area (FATA) in Pakistan. An Indian gesture on Kashmir and an initiative to broker agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan would perhaps be more acceptable than intervention by the US or UK. The threat of terrorism affects India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The enemy against all three nations is united. Cannot the governments of these nations unite to fight the enemy?
The tide of history renders change inevitable. If governments do not anticipate change, events take over and lead. Events taking over to lead can result in painful confusion and turmoil. The artificially contrived international borders in South Asia defy norms of nationhood. But they are a reality. Equally, the cultural nationalism of South Asia is a reality. Only a South Asian Union on the lines of EU can give expression to this reality without disturbing international borders. One day the nations of South Asia will have to coalesce. Diplomacy might very gainfully be employed for this. It is the destiny of South Asia, the tide of its history.
Can Musharraf do a Gorbachev? The former Soviet leader who was a creature and beneficiary of the old communist apparatus rose to the very top only to initiate the process of ideological erasure and collective redemption. Musharraf and the Pakistani army have to begin the catharsis that will help Pakistan in its transition and this election may be their last opportunity. Myopic well-wishers in the US and elsewhere should not queer the pitch. The yearning of the Pakistani people to be politically emancipated from the oppression of the jackboot is more palpable now than ever before and February 18 elections bear testimony to their fortitude. INAV

Look East policy

By Sanchet Barua

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's recent visit to the Northeast is a continuation of a Northeast policy which gained momentum as far back as 1996 when 10 per cent of all central ministry funds were earmarked for the region with carry over provisions in every budget. The budget this year is likely to continue this trend. Actually, a Northeast policy is driven as much by security considerations as pure economic reasoning.
While there is nothing wrong with this (look at China!) it is surprising why Northeast 'gurus' have been unwilling to admit this. In the past, commentators on the Northeast have tried to gloss over the external security issue in Arunachal in particular and only recently do we see some statements in this context. However, here we will concentrate on the trade aspects of what is now labelled India's 'Look East' (LE) policy.
But first, it is important to understand the genesis of the LE policy. What exactly the LE policy means. Talking to a number of retired bureaucrats did not help, all of them claimed that they were the originators of the term but none could tell what it implies. However, in general, one can place the origin of the term to around the early '90s. That at least seems the general consensus. Let's then look at the possibilities.
LE could mean one or all of three things-the Indian economy looking East (to Asean, Japan, etc), the Northeast looking East (to Myanmar, Bangladesh and beyond) or the Centre looking to the Northeast. The first is a distinct possibility but does not necessarily have anything to do with the Northeast. One of the misconceptions among commentators on the Northeast is the belief that the Centre can hardly look to the East without looking at the Northeast. Presumably this refers to India's attempts to boost trade with the East-Asian economies and diversifying away from a trade pattern biased toward the West. But to assume that this must mean any benefit to the Northeast is invalid. It is equivalent to saying that India cannot trade with the EU without going through the Middle East!
Today, sea transport (the dominant form) accounts for as little as five per cent of the landed cost of any commodity. Hence, geographical closeness has little to do with trade except in the limited border trade (trade in bulky items like cement, timber, coal, jute, etc). It is not surprising that the much vaunted 'international airport' at Guwahati has been a complete non-starter with all its (now non-operational) cold storages being a mute testimony to faulty planning. So India's trade with the Asian countries does not imply automatic gains to the Northeast.
What about the Northeast looking east? Currently, the Northeast's trade with its neighbours is limited by policy to barter trade either with Myanmar or China. But, apart from policy impediments it is clear that the Northeast economies (especially the hill economies) are largely subsistence agricultural economies. Given the low income levels in bordering economies, economic theory tells us that trade between the Northeast and its neighbours is likely to be mainly in basic agricultural goods. Yet, this itself could be a big boost to the Northeast if not limited by the poor intra- Northeast connectivity.
It seems common sense that one can hardly expect farmers in the Northeast to trade with bordering countries if they don't first trade among themselves. What this implies is that the infrastructure policy of the Northeast must focus on road and rail rather than air connectivity. To put it differently, the LE policy is constrained more by the lack of trade among the Northeast states rather than the infrastructure for border trade. More specifically, unless intra Northeast connectivity improves, farmers will not produce more for the internal and external markets.
Today the problem is not that the Northeast states are not trading with their neighbours but that they are not trading amongst themselves. The objective of the Centre should be to first create a market within the Northeast rather than with the neighbours. Creating intra- Northeast connectivity will link the farmers to internal markets.The bottom line? The economic approach to the problems of the Northeast seems to be based more on historical romanticism than cold economic facts. May be, the best thing would be to leave implementation of the LE policy to the ministries of infrastructure and agriculture rather than to the ministries of commerce and external affairs. INAV

Indo-Danish ties

By R C Rajamani

With their historical link dating back four centuries, the relations between India and Denmark received a fresh impetus with the visit to India by the Danish Prime Minister Anders PM Fogh Rasmussen in the first week of February. His visit has helped further strengthen the bonds of traditional friendship and goodwill and focus attention on enhancing bilateral cooperation in a cross-sectoral manner. During his four-say visit, Rasmussen held discussions with President Pratibha Devisingh Patil, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, who hosted a banquet in his honour and the External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee. He also attended Delhi's sustainable development summit on February 7 on climate change. Later, he visited Agra before his departure for home.

India's relations with Denmark are cordial and friendly. India and Denmark also share a historical link since 1620. The visit of the Danish Prime Minister took place at a time when there is an increasing desire on both sides to engage more deeply with each other in a cross-sectoral manner.

After the phasing out of Danish aid to India during 1998-2005, relations have seen a shift and are now based on synergies in economic, trade, investment, and technology. There is a growing appreciation in Denmark of the economic reforms undertaken by India and its emergence as an economic powerhouse with sustained high rates of growth. Danish companies are showing a greater keenness to expand their business ties with Indian companies or to outsource services from India. Denmark supports the framework of the G-4 for UNSC expansion. Denmark has also indicated that it would like to see India in the expanded Security Council and it is also an important member of the EU, with which India has a strategic partnership. Denmark is also a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) with which New Delhi has to do business once the Indo-US civil nuclear deal is through.

Bilateral trade between India and Denmark is on a growth path. It has reached US $885 million in 2006. India's exports to Denmark were US $ 542 million in 2006, while its imports from Denmark were US$343 million in 2006. The balance of trade in goods is in India's favour and the surplus increased to $ 199 m in 2006 from $ 82 m in 2005. Denmark ranks at the 22nd place among the foreign investors in India. Foreign Direct Investment Inflows from Denmark from 1991 till July 2007 totalled Rs 6,781.45 million or approx. US$ 164.32 million. In 2006, Danish service exports to India (largely sea transport services) was USD 664 million, while Indian service exports to Denmark (including sea transport services, business travel and computer services) was USD 401.8 million, taking the bilateral total to USD 1065.8 million.

However, there is still considerable potential for two-way trade to grow. Several Indian companies have a presence in Denmark in sectors such as IT, wind energy, bio-technology, port-infractructure, shipping sector, and bio-technology. There are opportunities for growth in Information Technology, Biotechnology. Shipping, Tourism, agriculture and agro-processing, fisheries and deep-sea fishing (including Greenland and Faeroe Islands). Promoting two-way tourism is an opportunity for both countries.

During Mr Rasmussen's visit, India and Denmark signed three agreements including a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in the field of new and renewable energy.

The other agreements are establishment of joint commission for cooperation between the two countries and arrangement on gainful employment for family members of diplomatic mission. The agreements were signed after delegation level talks headed by the two prime ministers. The details of the agreements are as follows :

* Agreement for establishment of bilateal Joint Commission for Cooperation: It seeks to provide impetus to and develop the deepening and strengthening of ties between India and Denmark in all fields of mutual interest. They include the political, economic, commercial, scientific, technological, research, energy, environmental, consular, education and cultural fields.

* MOU for cooperation in New and Renewable Energy. It seeks to establish New and Renewable Energy cooperation between Indian and Danish entities with the aim of developing new and renewable energy technologies. It also seeks to establish Joint Committee which will in turn identify areas of mutual interest and cooperation for development of new and renewable energy technologies, systems, sub-systems, devices, components, etc and monitoring and evaluating cooperation activities.

* Arrangement on Gainful Employment for Family Members of the Diplomatic Mission or Consular Post: The arrangement seeks to allow the members of the family farming part of the household of a member of a diplomatic mission or consular post of the sending state to engage in gainful employment in the receiving state on reciprocal basis in accordance with the provisions of the laws and regulations of the receiving state.

Denmark ranks as the 19th largest foreign investor in India, ahead of countries such as Russia, Canada, Spain, Austria, Finland, and Ireland. Direct Investment Inflows from Denmark into India from 1991 till December 2006 have totalled Rs 6,678.9 Million or approx. US $ 161.8 Million. The AP Moller Group, which has invested heavily in India in recent times by acquiring a major equity stake in the Gujarat Pipavav Port, is one of the leading investors from Denmark. Other major investors from Denmark include Cheminova Agro, F L Smidth & Co., Denfoss, Chr. Hansen A/S, Danisco, IM Glaffiber, Lundbeck A/S, and Egmont International Holding.

The Danish investors have shown considerable interest in India. The Danish investment management group Bankinvest's investment funds focusing solely on Indian and Chinese shares attracted more than 18,000 Danish customers who have invested a total of DKK 1,083 Million (US$ 180 Million) in these shares. In particular, Bankinvest identified five large-scale Indian undertakings-Bajaj Auto, Infosys, Ranbaxy, Reliance Industries, and the State Bank of India-as first class investment targets from the point of view of Danish shareholders. The leading Danish Bank, Jyske Bank, also floated India specific shares for the first time in February 2004.

Denmark recognizes India's reforms and capabilities to emerge as a major economy in the 21st century and is keen to enhance political, economic and trade cooperation with India. Denmark has shown interest in encouraging munually beneficial cooperation with India in knowledge based industries, particularly biotechnology and information technology, besides non-conventional energy resources food processing, shipping and pharmaceuticals. (PTI)

)