An expected sentencing
November 4th, 2011
The sentencing of convicted Pakistan cricketers, former captain Salman Butt, and fast bowlers Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir, to prison terms ranging from six to 30 months was expected after their conviction in a court in Britain on charges of involvement in fixing outcomes of matches. That three former Pakistan cricketers, all stars in their own right, will be spending time in jail in a British prison will rankle many a Pakistani, regardless of whether he follows cricket or not. But one needs to look at this dispassionately and from the point of view of whether justice has been done, and what this unpleasant and unsavoury episode means for cricket. Clearly, the judge felt that there was enough evidence to convict all three players. Amir, who is a teenager, had appealed for leniency citing his lack of experience and age, however, it seems this was ignored by the judge who said that sending him to jail would be a deterrent to other budding cricketers. Also, evidence may have come up in the court hearings suggesting that Amir had been involved in another incident related to spot-fixing, so his plea that he was coerced on this particular occasion may have been undermined by this. However, lawyers may argue that this other instance wasn’t proven and the judge should have asked the jury to disregard it and should not have considered it when sentencing him.
Has justice been served? Partly. The Pakistan Cricket Board should now wake up and ensure that all its players know what is expected of them as far as match-fixing and spot-fixing are concerned. Of course, the ability to choose between right and wrong is something that is usually instilled in all of us from our early years, but there is a need now to ensure that our cricketers are made aware of the consequences of actions such as trying to fix outcomes of matches when they are contracted to play by the board. Beyond Pakistan, the issue needs to be thoroughly investigated by all Test-playing nations because the betting networks have spread their tentacles far and wide and in the past allegations have been made against players from other countries as well.
Liberalising trade with India
November 4th, 2011
It has been a long time coming. Fifteen years after New Delhi granted Pakistan ‘Most Favoured Nation’ (MFN) status in 1996, Islamabad has finally decided to reciprocate, a move this newspaper welcomes. That it comes as part of a broader negotiation process with India to liberalise trade between the two countries is even more encouraging.
South Asia is, by most measures, the least economically integrated region in the world, largely due to animosity between India and Pakistan. At independence, Pakistan’s trade with India accounted for 60 per cent of our total foreign trade. That number is now barely above three per cent, an economic travesty considering the scale of unmet demand for Indian goods in Pakistan and vice versa (measured through the roaring smuggling trade between the two countries). We agree with Commerce Secretary Zafar Mahmood that normalisation of ties regularises trade and increases it, rather than being disruptive for local industries.
Yet much work remains to be done. As was made evident in the commerce ministry’s statement on November 2, normalisation of trade does not automatically follow the granting of MFN status. Indeed, New Delhi maintains extensive non-tariff barriers to Pakistani goods entering India, even more than a decade and a half after granting Pakistan MFN status. Pakistan also has high tariffs and even outright bans on the import of most goods from India.
What was encouraging about the talks in Mumbai last month was that both countries had candid and detailed discussion about the specific barriers to trade between India and Pakistan. Indian regulators agreed to review their regulations on the import of Pakistani goods (which Pakistani traders describe as burdensome) and the Pakistani commerce ministry appears to have been given authorisation to move from a ‘positive’ list — where trade in only a few items is allowed and the rest is banned — to a ‘negative’ list: where trade in only a few items is banned.
The next round of talks is scheduled for later this month. In Mumbai, the Indians had been insistent that Pakistan reciprocate MFN status for India. Now that Pakistan appears to have done so, one hopes that New Delhi will begin the process of removing its own barriers to trade in earnest.
Power solutions
November 4th, 2011
With frequent power cuts crippling Pakistani industry, the decision to import 500 MW of electricity from India should raise no objections. Not only will it foster improved ties between the two countries, we will also get a desperately-needed source of energy. While welcoming this move, though, it is important not to overstate the impact it will have. We currently face an electricity shortage of 800 MW and the government has been unable to improve power generation by completing work on hydel projects. This deal should not obscure the complete and utter failure of the government’s energy policy. Indeed, it would not be too cynical to suggest that the government’s prime motive behind seeking electricity from India is not the chance to improve ties with our neighbour but to ensure its own survival. Keep in mind that India made the offer to export electricity back in April; the government has accepted only after the opposition PML-N used the issue of power breakdowns to launch a mass movement.
The truth is, if importing energy is the solution to our electricity needs, we need to look towards Iran. The Iranian government has offered to export double what we will be importing from India, but the government has so far been curiously hesitant to accept the offer. This can only be attributed to the US, which has been trying to stymie economic ties between the two nations. Had it not been for American pressure, a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan which would have provided a minimum of 1000 MW of electricity may have been a reality by now. We often talk about how it is in our national interest to cooperate with the US on issues of terrorism no matter how much we might dislike it; here is an instance where it is imperative that we defy the US in the name of national interest. Of course, we should never have been in such a situation in the first place. Had successive governments done a better job of producing electricity through hydel projects, we would not have had to pay through our nose for imported electricity.