Pakistan's Economics Troubles

• Pakistan's Economics Troubles 

  
  

  
  

  Since its start, Pakistan s actual and perceived defense threats have caused a great sense opara country. This paranoia in more than seventy years old history of the country under the regime, not Doth military dictatorships and democratic governments. It has kept the policymakers preoccupied with securing the country, leading to ignorance of the developmental aspects of policy. The poverty rate in the country is at an all-time high as, according to recent estimates, 24% of the people in the country are still living below the poverty line while the GDP growth rate hangs at a mere 2.80 percent. Pakistan also owes international institutes a lot of debt and is talking with the IMF about a bailout. Even though the economy is in such a dire condition, 80% of Pakistan's annual budget goes to the military, and even though the army chief has announced a voluntary budget cut for the fiscal year 2019-2020, The main question to ask here 1s that are Pakistan s defense issues so intense that the economy cannot even get a fair chance to prosper unless As one assesses the core of these two factors t turns out that a lot of Pakistan s main defense threats are not actual but perceived and even the threats which are are self-created and can De avoided, 1no, Pakistan wl nave to revisit and assess the credibility of the foundations of significant aspects of its orange ate sled culture, the economic woes are to be deal.

  
  

  One of the main reasons that Pakistan has always been more focused on dealing with defense issues rather than uplifting the economy is its colonial pasta one 8ave in, in 1947 and decided to leave India but since Muslims were the most opp Ds Kaj and Hindus were more progressed than Muslims, Pakistan needing an interiority complex while departing combined India. This inferiority complex aparanO13 made the ruling figures protect the country rather than strengthen its economic conditions.

  
  

   Instability and instability bring more external threats, which exactly happened to Pakistan country never flourished in economic regard. Since Pakistan did not start at a great foot with India because of the unfair distribution of resources, relations between the two neighbors never ea5ed up. India and Pakistan gained independence from the British government, but they never gained independence from intolerance and religious hate for each other a thus remained biblical enemies. India was not only huge but also had skilled labor. Thus it flourished on the economic front and became a power to reckon with in the South- Asian region. Pakistan's main concern was creating three stable economic Systems after its start with limited resources. These superpowers, for the sake of security, made Pakistan dependent on this and zeroed skilled officers. Still, it failed to focus on this aim and got busy soothing its neighbor India's paranoia.

  Significant budget cuts started going to the military, and military alliances with the United Sta started building up. This obsessive pursuit of strengthening defense against India led to a profound ignorance of the economic issues. The allocation of a significant budget to the military and almost every policy revolving around defense gave the military leadership great power in Pakistan, and the political leaders got reduced to puppets. The military thus became the central policy-setting institution in the country. As a result, military coups became a trend, with the first military dictator taking charge in 1958. Democracy is necessary if a flourishing economy and continuous overthrow of political systems give a severe blow to democracy in the country. As a result, the economy became stagnant. The regime of Ayub Khan is the period of the industrial revolution in Pakistan. Still, it should not be that Ayub Khan led the war against India in 1965, which cost human lives and economic resources. Ayub khan also delivered many riveting speeches during the war, which shifted the nation's goal toward security rather than the economy. Another reason that policy never shifted towards the economy is because of an exaggeration of the narrative surrounding defense threats to Pakistan. Zia-ul-Haq, during his regime, gave unparalleled support to the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan and validated his decision based on gaining support from the U.S.A, which he deemed necessary to deal with the looming threat of India becoming the dominant power in the region. This exaggerated narrative of imminent defense threats led to Pakistan's never-ending loop of terrorism. It boosted the economy as the country's northern areas burned in the fire raised by Taliban-led militants. The economy in Pakistan thus became the collateral damage that Pakistan had to bear because of reckless measures that the country took to save itself from perceived threats, the biggest of them being India. When Pakistan decided to provide military help to the Afghan Taliban, the motivation behind it was to keep the U.SA on its side as well as Afghanistan since Afghanistan shares a highly complex border with Pakistan, and Pakistan could not afford an alliance between Afghanistan and India. So, once again, Pakistan looked only at the security aspect of the alliances it made and did not consider the economic benefits that could see through trade.

  
  

  • Pakistan's leadership has always been busy with "protecting the country from "threats" that can not solve the existential crisis for Pakistan; there has never been any original policy to improve economic conditions in the country. There have alm0st never been any tax reforms that could lead to wedge the fiscal deficit or potential programs tO mobilize the youth, which could lead to a skilled labor force. No wonder Pakistan's gop nt grown to even fifty percent of its true potential, Recently some youth mobilisation programs sud ab skill develophent program have but these programs do not even touch the requireo scale an e and are at most a band ald on a deep wound. Anti-corruption wing in the country has also been vey the past few years ut even there the focus has also been on recovering money instead of making fool proot th icies to drop cOrruptuon rom its root in the country. The only solution that the economic advisors to the olic rime minister could come up with are balouts with the help of the International Monetary Fund and the won aank. These institutions again are under the de-facto control of superpowers with whom Pakistan is in military liar ances. Most ot PakIStan s military alliances as mentioned earlier are to cope with its dilemma of existentia threats and thus the superpowers can manipulate the bailout deals according to their Own will. As a resui Pakistan is lett with no choice Dut to accept these high interest deals to keep security alliances. In tns scenario, the Daiout dedis only act as quiCk fxes and push the economy even more towards dependance. 1nis a continuous loop that the Pakistan has pushed itself into, where its economy suffers because of military endeavours tor the sake ot superpowers and when it takes loans from these very superpowers to compensate the economy it gets blackmailed into committing to more military .endeavours and the cirele continues. Ihe problem then again is in Pakistan's estimation of security threats that it faces in its own region. India 15 the major threat around which this whole fiasco revolves and India's main political strategy is propaganda where the Indian media spreads agEBressive narratives even though this aggression realizes itself only on specific occasions. ltis true that there is cross-fire on the line of control quite frequenty but that is the extentof it. India is not on Pakistan's gate with a big army every day butit feels like it actually is, when the narrative that the Pakistan's military describes and the strategic vision that policy makers present . t is thus tair to say that Pakistan is living undera threat which is not unreal but the extent of it and this delusion is impacting the strategic vision of the country which is damaging the economic potential of the country. One of the biggest examples which can corroborate this claim is Bhutto's reckiess dive into developing a nuclear bomb for the country when what the country needed was economic reforms. Bhutto in one of his speeches, while his team was working on developing a nuclear bomb, said that "if India builds a bomb, we will eat grass, leaves, even go hungry but we will bud a Domb of our own These famous words at that time invigorated the whole nation with patriotic zeal, reflect the misdirected priorities of the country pretty. India did build a bomb in 1974, but that did not mean that it Was ready to launch it on Pakistan, and that did not mean that Pakistan had to rip its population out Or economic prosperity and direct all its resources into building a bomb. Many experts still argue that with the uprising of the United Nations and ant nuclear proliferation campaigns, the probability of a county Using nuclear weapons 3gainst another state is very low. In the case of Pakistan and India, the chances snack even more since the two countries share borders. A nuclear bomb cannot be from one side to the other without the danger of damaging the population and territory of the attacker itself. By 1998, Pakistan did have a Domo but more than 40% of the people we ing under the poverty line. The nuclear program noE Ony e Peopiepoo but also shifted the focus from industrial development in the country, which the o and to this day Pakistan is still n July 2018, it came with a lot of promises of recovering corruption were with the intent of uplifting the economy, Onorunateiy, it too had to succumb to the cire On trying to get the frozen economy out of its decades-old mold. , too had to succumb to the circumstances. When the PTI government took charge, a money bailout had to be upon, even to one effort to g out by bringing in foreign investments from OAE and Hina, and taxes were also increased deal on deficit. Although a lot of backlashes came in from experts and the general public for these s edge the general public for these steps, Pakistan's leadership had always been busy in "protecting the country from "threats" that can ncn existential crisis for Pakistan, there has never been any original policy to improve economic conditions in the country. There have alm0st never been any tax reforms that could lead to wedge the fiscal detcit or etantial programs tO mobilise the youth which could lead to a skilled labor force. No wonder Pakistan's gop nt grown to even fifty percent of its true potential, Recently some youth mobilisation programs sud ab skill develophent program have but these programs do not even touch the requireo scale an e and are at most a band ald on a deep wound. Anti-corruption wing in the country has also been vey the past few years ut even there the focus has also been on recovering money instead of making fool proot th icies to drop cOrruptuon rom its root in the country. The only solution that the economic advisors to the olic rime minister could come up with are balouts with the help of the International Monetary Fund and the won aank. These institutions again are under the de-facto control of superpowers with whom Pakistan is in military liar ances. Most ot PakIStan s military alliances as mentioned earlier are to cope with its dilemma of existentia threats and thus the superpowers can manipulate the bailout deals according to their Own will. As a resui Pakistan is lett with no choice Dut to accept these high interest deals to keep security alliances. In tns scenario, the Daiout dedis only act as quiCk fxes and push the economy even more towards dependance. 1nis a continuous loop that the Pakistan has pushed itself into, where its economy suffers because of military endeavours tor the sake ot superpowers and when it takes loans from these very superpowers to compensate the economy it gets blackmailed into committing to more military endeavours and the cirele continues. Ihe problem then again is in Pakistan's estimation of security threats that it faces in its own region. India 15 the major threat around which this whole fiasco revolves and India's main political strategy is propaganda where the Indian media spreads agEBressive narratives even though this aggression realizes itself only on specific occasions. ltis true that there is cross-fire on the line of control quite frequenty but that is the extentof it. India is not on Pakistan's gate with a big army every day butit feels like it actually is, when the narrative that the Pakistan's military describes and the strategic vision that policy makers present . t is thus tair to say that Pakistan is living undera threat which is not unreal but the extent of it and this delusion is impacting the strategic vision of the country which is damaging the economic potential of the country. One of the biggest examples which can corroborate this claim is Bhutto's reckiess dive into developing a nuclear bomb for the country when what the country needed was economic reforms. Bhutto in one of his speeches, while his team was working on developing a nuclear bomb, said that "if India builds a bomb, we will eat grass, leaves, even go hungry but we will bud a Domb of our own These famous words at that time invigorated the whole nation with patriotic zeal, reflect the misdirected priorities of the country pretty. India did build a bomb in 1974, but that did not mean that it Was ready to launch it on Pakistan, and that did not mean that Pakistan had to rip its population out Or economic prosperity and direct all its resources into building a bomb.

  
  

  • Policymakers had finally shifted their direction, and many ideas were circulating in or economy in the long run. These efforts but did not even have the chance to bear their four announced the cancellation of articles 370 and 3sa which started a critical banter between the two e of the conflict of Kashmir. India not had not only declared Kashmir its territory instead of a conflicted region but also cut all media ties for the people living in Kashmir while militarizing. This step from India again shifted the government's focus towards defense as foremost political leaders started making riveting speeches tiled with war threats. Even though the prime minister raised the issue on the o fixing the and Ind a forum in the United Nations, there was still extreme pressure to take military actions against India to avenge that of Kashmir. Kashmir is an important issue as its militarization causes a line of control threat to Pakistan. However, it is still not as big a threat to Pakistan's existence that the focus of policymakers shifts completely. A crashing economy and an increasing debt are what Pakistan should be about, as these two things have already been a blackmail tool against the country, leading to security threats. Pakistan started with a paranoid mindset that India was the ultimate enemy, and every other superpower was out to get it. This mindset led to a narrow visioned policy right from the beginning, and the only focus was on the preservation of India instead of aim economic growth. Later military dictatorships and an exaggerated narrative of security threats cemented this idea, and the defense budget rose to 80% of the whole while the economy went unnoticed. It is true that in the beginning, some security threats were imminent and needed immediate attention. Still, as time passed, these threats were more propaganda. Pakistan should have estimated that and focused on building itself up from its economic foundations instead of relying on loans from international powers in exchange for military help. 50, in essence, like any other nation, Pakistan does have defense threats, but they are not big enough to pose an existential threat to the nation and not at all big enough to delay economic growth. It is the paranoid and obsessive nature of perception of these defense threats that Pakistan needs to work on to deal with its economic woes. 
  •