World through a Pakistani Lens

Tag: Pakistan

  • Regional Security Concerns: Pakistan’s Response to US-India Ties

    Regional Security Concerns: Pakistan’s Response to US-India Ties

    Amer Zafar Durrani, February 21, 2025

    The United States and India Joint Leaders’ Statement issued on February 13, 2025, provoked strong reactions in Pakistan. Is it “much ado about nothing” or is it more a case of “where there is smoke, there is a fire?” Sifting facts from posturing is important. Pakistan needs to objectively assess its global standing without exaggeration or romanticism. The joint statement emphasized enhanced strategic cooperation between India and USA, focusing on counterterrorism, economic partnerships, and regional security. On the surface, this meeting underscored India’s elevated role in global supply chains and its deepening defense and technological collaborations with the U.S. Is this new?

    While the Modi administration hailed the recent summit as a success, independent analysts, including in India, observed that significant trade concessions and visa relaxations were not secured. Instead, the discussions predominantly centered on defense collaborations, notably the U.S. agreement to sell F-35 fighter jets to India. This development aligns with India’s defense modernization objectives but raises concerns about regional arms balance and potential military competition.

    The growing US India defense collaboration, though not recent, signifies an attempt at shifting South Asia’s military balance. India’s renewed pursuit of advanced defense systems, AI-driven military technology, and cyber capabilities through US partnerships and reshaping regional security dynamics. In this recent meeting the US agreed to sell 5th Generation fighter aircraft to India, a move that aligns well with India’s defense modernization objectives. The extended collaboration includes joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and cooperation in areas such as space and cybersecurity. These initiatives aim to enhance India’s defense capabilities and ensure regional stability. However, this deepening defense partnership also raises concerns about the regional arms balance and potential military competition, particularly with neighboring countries like Pakistan and China.

    This is part of India’s ongoing strategic engagement with US initiatives, which are often prioritized by the US and, possible knowingly to the present Indian government, may not always align with Indian interests. Starting with the more innocent. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) highlights the growing US-India cooperation in clean energy, digital trade, and supply chain security. Then to higher causes, particularly the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and the I2U2 initiative, comprising India, Israel, the UAE, and the US. IMEC aims to enhance trade efficiency and infrastructure investment, countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Concurrently, the I2U2 seeks to boost economic cooperation in sectors such as renewable energy, food security, and technology.

    The commitment by the US and India to increase bilateral trade to USD 500 billion by 2030 signifies a deepening economic partnership but also signals something deeper. Before going deeper, let us understand the India is already US’s tenth largest trading partner, with a total bilateral trade of slightly higher than USD 129 billion. Comparing, while the U.S. is among Pakistan’s top export destinations, Pakistan does not rank in any real standing among the top trading partners of the US. The fact that Pakistan’s total global trade, at slightly above USD 102 billion, does not even match the US-India trade, should beg a question. Why even try comparing or questioning?

    Let us seek the answer in more sinister possibilities. The US views India as a critical alternative to China for manufacturing and investment, attributed to its skilled workforce, expanding infrastructure, regulatory improvements, and growing stature, but still with low labor costs. India views these movements with the US as addressing its structural challenges, including foreign direct investment volatility and complex global trade regulations. These initiatives similarly underscore India’s strategic shift towards global trade integration and supply chain resilience, and a positioning that can also be viewed as natural, given its growth and development trajectory along with its geostrategic position and ideological, constitutional, and projected narrative.

    For Pakistan, these developments necessitate a proactive reassessment of its foreign policy including trade and connectivity strategies. Rather than adopting a reactive stance to India’s initiatives, Pakistan should focus on strengthening its trade networks within the Middle East, Central Asia, and other regions. This approach involves fostering bilateral economic alliances, investing in logistics and infrastructure, and leveraging regional trade frameworks to enhance its global positioning.

    Pakistan’s economic and foreign policy must transition from a reactive posture to one that actively seeks a massive realignment and diversification beyond the US and its “Iron Brother” China. This realignment must be seriously thought through and acted upon with alacrity. This is not simply a greater focus on investment and trade diversification or simply engaging further with regional economic coalitions.

    Security concerns in the region are high. Reports reveals that Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is now Afghanistan’s largest terrorist group, with growing support from the Afghan Taliban for cross-border attacks into Pakistan. This evolving security landscape underscores the necessity for comprehensive regional counterterrorism efforts. Pakistan’s policy responses should emphasize multilateral intelligence cooperation, robust counterterrorism frameworks, and initiatives aimed at economic stabilization to address these challenges effectively.

    Pakistan must adopt a pragmatic, forward-thinking approach to its foreign policy. The current shifts in global alliances present opportunities for defense and economic trade diversification, infrastructure development, and strategic partnerships. By strengthening diplomatic and economic ties with regional partners, investing in technology-driven trade strategies, and leveraging its geographic advantage, Pakistan can position itself as a key player in an evolving 21st century global dynamic. “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ’em.” So said Malvolio in Twelfth Night, Act 2, Scene 5. Pakistan please don’t be Malvolio!

    Note: This article was first published by The News International Pakistan, please don’t be Malvolio, in Pakistan.

  • Equity and Grid Stability: Reconsidering Household Net Metering in Pakistan

    Amer Zafar Durrani, President, Reenergia and Komal Kenneth Shakeel, Senior Economist, Reenergia

    We wrote about household solar and its adoption in Pakistan last year and since, many a storm has erupted on the local landscape on this issue coupled with net metering. Net metering is a typical policy area where countries like Pakistan are best served to wait till all research has been done in the local context and a public consensus built around the pros and cons. Pakistani government, like it did in the case of IPPs went headlong without the pre-requisite policy research, debate, and consensus building to implement net-metering. Immediate ‘wins’ were celebrated.

    The fundamental issue being ignored is the experience since this being introduced in USA in the 1980s showed that the net metering required countries to be open to the public and to themselves about how they will balance the two core variables of ensuring energy equity and maintaining grid stability—requiring dynamic and localized policies rather than a single brush country wide application, like Pakistan does from GB and Chitral to Tharparkar and Gwadar. When power corridors of a country live in a small village across its border, called Islamabad, this happens often.

    Generally, net metering policy allows households (and others) drawing electricity from a centralized grid through the local energy supply company (ESCO) and producing their own renewables-based electricity to sell the excess electricity back to grid thereby reducing their electricity bills. This was first introduced in Minnesota in the USA in 1983, and since started being viewed as a local panacea for reducing the weight on consumers’ wallets. This bubble started bursting within a few decades as widespread utilization gained favor . The fact was that only the relatively rich had money to become independent power producers based on renewable technologies, and the many power plants supplying the central grid needed payment for their operations and production or the plants would shut down. In fact, the reason why net metering was invented was precisely why the plants could not shut down.

    Electricity once generated, and without storage, must be used or gets wasted. Initially policy makers saw the excess household energy to cater to an ever-growing demand for electricity by allowing excess ‘clean’ electricity from households (and others) to enter the central grid. Multiple issues followed. As localized energy from households grew the grid wanted to buy less from the power plants. The power plants could not produce as they had been installed for being efficient producers at certain capacities and without regular payments, they could not keep up operations. I am sure you will start seeing the mess being created. There were issues with keeping the central grid stable with multiple producers sending to and drawing electricity from it—though Pakistan never entirely got there.

    Pakistan was already reeling from our so called “Power Sector Debt” also famously called the “Circular Debt,” when this policy was introduced, not realizing that with the state of the sector the mess would be amplified if this policy was adopted across the board. This is where we stand today.

    All this has happened without the Pakistani policy makers realizing that many a country around the world have been reconsidering net metering policies for the following reasons, including the USA. Households (and organizations) with low-incomes cannot afford their own electricity nor participate in net metering schemes—voiding governments’ primary responsibility is to uphold equity. Grid stability is difficult to maintain with so many folks trading and even the most modern of grids struggle at some point. The electricity generators, the IPPs, are not running systems that can be turned on and off within days and need to maintain generation fuels’ supplies—all requiring healthy cash flow. They cannot even be told to shut down as the renewable sources of energy cannot maintain a twenty-hour load profile specific supply without storage and or IPPs supplying to the grid.

    From USA to Africa to Australia, countries are looking at agile policy making and dealing with net metering on a localized level instead of single brush policies applicable to deal with the issues arising from haphazardly implemented net metering policies. Policies can include developing localized polycentric solutions such as richer local producers (households and others) supplying excess back to localized grids serving the proximate poorer households (and other users); earning social service and impact points from the government. No matter what policies are being adopted, household net metering is no longer the ‘darling’ of any government or policy maker and measures are being adopted to ensure equity and grid stability.

    For Pakistan the challenge is amplified as the contracts with central IPPs are already a burden on the masses. In such a situation, there is a need for such policies on electricity to be shifted to provincial and local levels (when we have these officially) with careful planning at ESCOs’ level to ensure a win at each location. Hence it is not simply a matter of saying we have 6,000 MW of self-generated renewable electricity available, rather ask where they are concentrated. Otherwise, this elite lobby will force itself on the broader policy making agenda of the Pakistani government, subverting the lesser privileged.

    May 14, 2024, Islamabad, Pakistan

    This article was first carried by The News in Pakistan, https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1189821-net-metering-fallout

  • Afghans in Pakistan

    Yes, Afghanistan as a nation state has never really accepted Pakistan. But, why so? One lens through which to look at this hesitance from Kabul is the creation of the Durand line without the consent of the Afghanistan state. The natural demographics and geography of Pakistan and Afghanistan have since long, pointed at how the equilibrium lies in a confederation of the two nation-states. Both equilibrium and the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan relations since 1947 aside, calling out Afghans refugees in Pakistan, is like tearing the heart out from the very concept of Pakistan. It is a counterproductive strategy.

    Diplomatic troubles and travails aside, with the provision for the autonomous regions along the border of Afghanistan, Pakistan simply and informally moved its revenue territory inwards and allowed a free movement of Afghans and Pakistanis till the penultimate Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. Goods, likewise, were allowed to move to and fro, even before the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas.

    The 1979 Russian armed incursion in Afghanistan resulted in the first mass exodus of Afghans into Pakistan, with Pakistan hosting a peak of almost 6 to 7 million Afghans at one point in the early 90s which was then, followed by their return until 1999-2000. From 9/11 onwards and till the advent of the second (2.0) Taliban rule in August of 2021, the Afghan population in Pakistan oscillated between periods of moving into Pakistan and  returning back to Afghanistan—(barring a small peak inwards towards Pakistan in 2006-07)—mostly reacting to perceived local and often national economic conditions.

    Right after Taliban 2.0 in 2021, the number of Afghans entering Pakistan surged drastically. In this recent wave, Afghans fled due to fears of persecution and the perils of life under an extremist regime which to them, guaranteed no rights or rule of law in the manner they had grown accustomed to during the two decades under the US led coalition forces.

    Despite more than four decades of dealing with the waves of Afghans entering and residing and returning, Pakistan’s track record on the governance of the Afghans in Pakistan continues to be as it has always been – notoriously poor, mostly reactive and lead by security understandings and misguidance. An argument can be made that governance on the Afghan question was on par given Pakistan’s overall record of poor governance since 1947. Pakistan was simply unable to capitalize on the definite goodwill generated during the first exodus of Afghans and thereby continued to and continues to stumble today.

    In truth, the Pakistan government never looked at the issue of Afghans in Pakistan holistically or outside reactionary lenses which varied from humanitarian considerations to security. Afghans in Pakistan who were legally registered or were granted visas were largely allowed to operate economically and socially without any legal cover as long as it benefitted the interests of certain elements of the state or those of host communities. Elite Afghans also capitalized on this informality and worked hand-in-glove with their hosts for their own benefit—often at the cost of their fellow common Afghans in Pakistan. Yet on matters of identity, mobility, work, and social security for Afghans in Pakistan, the state protected its real interests through short-sighted approaches.

    Economically, Afghans in Pakistan contributed to the larger national economic pie but could’ve made better use of the formal economy if they were granted financial inclusion, and formal trading and connectivity rights. The current woes on currency and assets and illegal economic transboundary transactions could’ve also been dealt with and security matters ring-fenced much easier had this been legally allowed from the onset. However, the reactionary and shortsighted governance from Pakistan has much to account for both Pakistani and Afghan citizens.

    Despite all this, the Afghans like most traditional migrant communities in Pakistan worked hard and delivered for their host country—albeit invisibly, due large segments of the Pakistani economy being undocumented. For example, the labor market, especially in waste disposal, construction, sales, carpets, gems and jewelry, handicrafts, retail, culinary, and transportation would not have been robust or thrived without Afghans in Pakistan. However, the mixed economic effects felt by certain populations and mostly by the state were due to them being confined to the informal. As a result, Pakistani labor was the first affected by this treatment.

    The fact is that Afghan labor, like most migrant labor elsewhere, always undercut local labor in price while delivering better productivity and skills—raising concerns amongst locals [reminds one of the stories of the Polish immigrants in UK] who in turn impacted national sentiments unwillingly, while not realizing that the fault lay solely with the state of Pakistan. An even sadder impact of this informality was borne by Afghan women and girls in Pakistan whose wages were undercut, and their labor exploited easily by greedy male Afghan intermediaries and Pakistani host families. The Afghan women labor participation rate in Pakistan has always been substantially above that of their hosts, given the poor female labor participation locally within Pakistan.

    Then one should talk of fresh and dry fruits, pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, recycling, and the electronics sector in Quetta. Also, carpet weaving, gemology, and transportation industries in Peshawar. Real estate investments in the capital Islamabad to other key cities like Karachi, to introduction of new trends and designs to local markets makes it evident that Afghans in Pakistan have benefitted from joint ventures and partnerships with local host communities. However, the state of Pakistan due to its shortsighted policies has only lost in the longer run, be it GITA (Goods In Transit to Afghanistan) trade or its desire to have strategic depth in the east.

    This present forced displacement will bear out no different. The memories of Sikhs being evicted in the name of partition by local vested interests in Rawalpindi in 1947 who only acted in self-interest and not that of the birthing state of Pakistan has come back to haunt the country. Are the Afghans being asked to leave Pakistan today suffering the same fate?

    Sadly, all signs point to it. The state of Pakistan may have legitimate reasons, though throwing the baby out with the proverbial bath water is hardly a sensible decision for Pakistan’s overall security. Then there are also unresolved questions about the treatment of women, children, and the elderly in this forced journey back to Afghanistan, only to be complicated further by what awaits them on their perilous journey back home. Time is ripe to have this debate while keeping eyes wide open in the primary interest of Pakistan. More on this in a more detailed article, that Initiate Asia is working on.

    Note: An abridged and edited version of this article was earlier published in the “The News Pakistan” [https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1130882-the-afghan-refugee-question] in November 2023.

    Two Reports by Reenergia LLC [www.reenergia.com] on a) intrinsic economic value of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan and b) opportunities for returning Afghan Refugees in Afghanistan, both completed prior to COVID-19, 2020, informed this article on economic issues.

  • Sheep, Shepherds, Pakistan, and Social Pollution!

    “To be born again, first you have to die. How to ever smile again, if first you won’t cry? How to win the darling’s love mister, without a sigh?”

    I will not even dare and explain whose quote I am using. Those who know, do shut up. Pakistan is, I think, in need of this tipping point. Do we continue as we are, and have been, or do we turn a new leaf?

    We are not a small number of people—230 million or so of us sheep. Sorry, minus 40 odd million who believe that they live on the largesse of the shepherds. That still leaves 190 million odd sheep. Wow! Some 10,000 odd shepherds, take away our lives and our souls. Our right to life! Who are these people? We know them know, as we knew them always.

    These shepherds have their roots in the extractive British colonial system we inherited. Bureaucrats, also formerly known as “brown sahibs,” were the harbingers. They were closely followed by the pseudo-politicians, and on their coattails came the military. Mark my word, this is how it happened. Though I do mix the politicians and the social polluters—the feudal lords and ladies, who lived off their roles in culling the “natives” for the “gora sahib,” aka the British. As time moved on things got interesting and the industrialists and later on the real-estate moguls all became part of the shepherds.

    “Ae Watan ke sajeele jawaano; mere naghme tumhaare liye hain; sarfaroshi hai imaan tumhaara; jurraton ke parastaar ho tum; jo hifaazat kare sarhadon ki..” – Sang by our awesome lady-crooner, Malika-e-Tarannum, Nur Jahan.

    This is a quote from a favorite song that did the round in 1965 and 1970—the wars. It has history and I have been part of it. The song, literally, makes me want to go and lay down my life at the borders for dear Pakistan! It now, though, also makes me sad.

    What is the military doing inside our borders? It has no mandate here. Yes, many will quote this and that part of the constitution and precedent legal judgements. Fact of the matter, my dear Pakistanis, is that we need to get them back into their barracks. Tough, not really, I will explain.

    Pakistan is not a corporation rather it is a collective of people with diverse timelines, objectives, and economic and social paths tied together by a national vision—a possible nation. A government’s job especially one which is elected for a limited time is not to create wealth rather to provide the enabling environment to create wealth—particularly by staying out of that business itself! A clear subset of the aforementioned, is to reduce the size and footprint of the government and to reduce (not increase) the resources in the hands of the government—as measure per unit such as capita or square meter.

    Pakistan today, is touted as a de-industrialized state. Let me tell you why? When government is in business and all private capital flows to dead real estate—no real appreciation or productivity in global terms—a country dies, and we are. Between the Bahiras and the Defense Housing Societies and the civil and military (yes, military, also public with a pretense of being private) and public state-owned-enterprises, the private sector is doomed. The sheep are being culled, not just being harvested for wool!

    Time has come to cut all this nonsense back to size! All civil and military assets not operationally required to provide defense of our borders, deliver social services, provide internal security and justice, should be shed. This is an assailable truth. At the core of all this is the failing of the people, yes, commonly known as sheep, for being labeled as such and evolving into “electing the best wolf they want to be eaten by.”

    We are all equal citizens of Pakistan, and all in office are the servants of the common people, who swear an oath to protect our rights to be so—least some have forgotten the ‘servant’ part. Servitude is the last attitude we see in those who serve us—the main problem, it is!

    Unfortunately, no one amongst us is ‘imported’. All of us, are a product of our society. So do not play holier than thou with me. Each institution of Pakistan is a microcosm of the family, the community, the village, the union council, the district, in short of us as a society. We are all to blame!

    Before you point fingers at anyone, know that you are here because you are a product of the social pollution you have all been a part of over the last century. All the excrement you see and so exuberantly report about in the media is of your own making, so don’t be ‘holier than thou’ and accept your personal blame, for only then will you bring about the Pakistan I dream about. Do you?

  • 2021, snakes and ladders and a virus exposing virulent buffoons

    2021, snakes and ladders and a virus exposing virulent buffoons

    2020 has ended, at least by the Gregorian calendar. As always, we are fooled by the time buffoons. Hope springs eternal. This turn of the year, I, for one, am part of this clan, though albeit, reluctantly. 2020 for me was the year of snakes and ladders. Chance pitted morality and malice in a game of realization; conspiracy theories aside.

    It was not who did it, but rather what happened, that decided the outcome of 2020—it did not take much to expose the neanderthal within, and the global community was exposed for its posturing and conflict. The earth won.

    It showed us the power of regeneration. The Earth made a comeback and reminded us, much as Claude Lévi-Strauss alluded to in Tristes Tropiques, that it was here long before we came and will be here long after we are gone.

    The sheer banality of the human, especially the so called human leaders’, discourse in 2021 left me wanting to retch, which I did with abandon. No multilateral claims, nor bilateral ones or unilateral ones, stood any chance in the face of a microcosm of a beast—the COVID-19 virus. We were all exposed as selfish nations, as selfish global communities. Let there be some cheer in that.

    Cheer, for now we can, if wise, set a course where technology and this realization should allow us to set a new path for this century and beyond. Will we be doing that? Not much gives me hope. All I see is a hope to get back to what we were doing. Sad, indeed, for this pandemic has shown us how to re-write the basics of global interactions if we want a better future for our children.

    Who cares about children, for, virulent buffoons, driven by a false sense of community and wealth, are driving us insane? That we are still unable to build a global governance structure post Westphalia and the World Wars, and the emerging humanity submerging in the nexus of disaster and conflict, is a clear indication that we have no game-plan.

    From a cry-baby in the largest democracy on earth to the chest thumping racist pig leading the second largest one, and the self-presuming rats running the game of prosperity, we are nowhere.

    The market of human emotions is being played by Bretton Woods multilateralism sloganeering, while we, the people of this world, are behaving like innocent chumps and crying hoarse and befooled into Black Fridays of desires and deprivations.

    Indebted nations and indebted people are the harbingers of much that will be at play this year. No degrees or CEOs or pretend leaders can save us. Only a collective bargain amongst humans using the technology platforms of social media can bail us out. Will they organize?

    Leadership itself must be rethought. We need a collective and inclusive mind with a desire for action. I sense that if we do not take charge the artificial intelligence, we so nurture, may well beat us to it.

    Before I close, a thought about Pakistan. Time has come for rebuilding a national consensus through plebiscites and by delinking election of representatives from election of ideas. The problem here and the problem globally is the same. We must take on serious thought and discourse as a building block and let the rat-race die. I know, you will say, dream on! But dreams are the builders of hope and good cheer! Blessings for 2021.