Opinion: Will Pak go the Lanka way?

There is a stark similarity between what happened in 1971 and what is being experienced now.

By Amitava Mukherjee

Hyderabad: Political upheavals are always preceded by social tensions. Sri Lanka is an example where economic hardships ultimately forced the common people to invade the presidential palace. In Nepal too, the monarchy system was replaced as a fallout of terrible economic penury of the common people which, in turn, gave rise to countrywide Maoist insurgency.

In India too, governments have changed at both Central and State levels due to rising social tensions. Examples are there: the rise of the Marxists-led governments in West Bengal and Kerala or caste-based party-led governments in the Hindi heartland and Tamil Nadu after the 1967 general election. But none of it can be compared with what has happened in Pakistan.

The present crisis in the land of Mohammed Ali Jinnah was inevitable. It should not be viewed only as an economic crisis but a structural one actually. It has now become a talk of the town: will Pakistan again see dismemberment as there is a stark similarity between what happened in 1971 and what is being experienced now with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Baloch separatists showing all signs of launching renewed attacks in 2023. In 1971 too, the economy was a big issue and one of the two principal factors behind forming the idea of Bengali nationalism. Fissures in the army were there then too as they are today. One general had replaced another general – Ayub Khan having been pushed out by Yahya Khan – and on top of everything there was total mismanagement of the economy.

Divided Deep State

Fifty-one years is too sufficient a time to take lessons and effect course corrections. Not for Pakistan. The present crisis is showing something extraordinary. For the first time in many years, the ‘deep state’ (a euphemism for the army) seems to be divided with a large section having opposed Qamar Javed Bajwa, the former army chief, and supporting Imran Khan who had the backing of the private media, an array of trained social media operatives and a middle class which feels shaky about its future. Otherwise, Imran Khan could not have had the courage to call Bajwa a ‘traitor’ when the latter used to hold the most powerful post in the country. This happened at a time when Pakistan needed to present to the western capitalist bloc a united face of the country for getting an IMF bailout.

After all, in Pakistan’s case, it is not only the political executive who lobbies for the country’s interests but the army chief also has equal, if not more, credentials and acceptance in the outer world. The example is close at hand. Very recently both Shehbaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Gen Bajwa visited the Gulf countries beseeching the governments there to bail out Pakistan from the present financial morass.

Pakistan is now narrowly moving on either side of a financial default – an ignominy when a country fails to repay its debt – as its foreign exchange reserve fell to $4.3 billion during the first week of January this year. Islamabad has got breathing space due to a $3-billion bailout from the United Arab Emirates and a $1-billion loan from Saudi Arabia.

According to the IMF, Pakistan’s total external debt will stand at around $138 billion at the end of the current fiscal. Of it, $103 billion is government debt. This is enough to give an idea of how Imran has run the government during his stewardship of the country. This year Pakistan has to repay $21 billion and $25 billion each year during the next three years. How will it be possible is anybody’s guess.

News has come out that an IMF team will soon visit Pakistan to start negotiations for a bailout package. Enough cause for jubilation for the Pakistani elite who, since the birth of the country, has only learnt to enjoy aid and loans caring not a fig for the ignominy and humiliation such an approach brings to the country. Even now the insensitive elite, enamoured as it is about a probable IMF grant rather than having any remorse for the poor people who have terribly suffered due to natural disasters last year, seems to be oblivious to the fact that any more IMF loans will further ensnare the country in a noose of further debts.

Structural Reforms

The only answer for Pakistan’s survival is structural reforms which are well high impossible in near future given the country’s feudal setup. Pakistan is still dominated by big landed magnates, the most well-known of them being the Bhutto family. Both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir were known to be ‘progressives’, yet in line with the character of the Pakistani ruling class, they did not do anything to abolish the anachronistic system of landlordism. This same class interest, albeit of a different nature, is now standing in the way of Pakistan’s financial stability.

While the two regimes of globalisation and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have fundamentally altered the international financial system with its emphasis on export promotion, Pakistan is still mired in a realm of import substitution which is in fact one of the three principal causes, the other two being corruption of the ruling class and huge defence expenditure, behind the country’s shattered economic underbelly.

Import substitution is good, or can even be called better than export promotions, for a country which has mature and honest political leadership and which invests a significant portion of its domestic income in research and development. However, the industrial scenario in Pakistan is said to be under the clutches of 12 families and they have been foisting restrictive trade and industrial practices for their own survival, lest more imports bring technologically superior goods and services which will make the formers’ outputs less attractive and redundant.

But right now Pakistan has no other way but to give stress on export for earning revenues. However, the picture is just the opposite. Pakistan’s share in the world’s export market is limited with hides and skins, textiles and apparel being the main items. The share of hides and skins shrank from 1.5% in the early 2000s to 0.8% in 2020. Textiles and apparel has come down from 2.3% to 1.8% over the same period. Per individual, Pakistan exports less than half of what Bangladesh does and less than 20 times what Vietnam achieves.

In light of the above facts, will it not sound incongruous that Pakistan’s export potential is $88 billion?