The word endowments should also perhaps include geographic location. If that is the case then each of the four provinces have different positional advantages. In that case, it is interesting to note that all the four provinces have international borders — the Punjab and Sindh with India, Balochistan with Iran and Afghanistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa (KP) with Afghanistan and China. Two provinces — Sindh and Balochistan — border the sea. The two other — Punjab and KP are landlocked. I will discuss below what each of the four provinces possess by way of endowments, how these have affected their economic and social development, how they have influenced their view of the world, and how their future could be shaped by their use.
Punjab inherited a vast and intricate system of surface irrigation that had turned its vast virgin plane into the granary of British India. It was in the potential embedded in the vast amount of water that flowed though the six major rivers of the Indus system that the colonial administration in India found a solution to a major problem it faced. The northeastern parts of the Indian colony had suffered from several severe famines that took the lives of millions of people. The British had just recovered from the mutiny of 1857 and they did not want another series of events to agitate the citizens of their expanding Indian empire. Having tried several different approaches, they settled on the one that involved huge investments aimed at turning the Punjab plane into a large food surplus area.
Water brought by well engineered works on the Indus and its tributaries quickly increased the output of food in the newly colonised lands. Since these surpluses had to be transported to the food-deficit areas, the British also invested large sums of money in building a network of railways and roads. The strategy worked and for several decades northeast India received large amounts of food from the Punjab.
The partition of the subcontinent need not have disrupted Punjab’s economic links with India’s food-deficit provinces and its industrial belt. But that happened largely because of the actions taken by the new government in India. The Indians, through a series of actions, sought to show Pakistan that it was a mistake for a significant number of Muslims to leave India. The Pakistani reaction was based on the assertion of the rights of a newly formed state and to convince India and its own citizens that the pursuit of the demand for a separate state for the Muslims of British India was the right way to proceed.
These were not the right choices to make. The series of actions and reactions led to the severance of the Pakistani economy from that of India. Most of the fault lay with India that took a number of aggressive steps in the area of trade. These led to the detachment of Punjab from the Indian economy. Had that not happened, what is now Pakistan’s Punjab would have remained primarily an agricultural economy supplying various items of food to the Indian population and industrial and various raw materials to the industries in India. An economy based largely on agriculture is not necessarily inferior to the one that draws its strength from manufacturing or from modern services. Denmark and the Netherlands, for instance, are more economically and socially developed than many parts of industrial Europe.
The Punjab’s other endowment was the skill base of its population. The small towns and medium-sized cities situated along the famed Grand Trunk Road had well-established small metal working industries at the time of independence. These supplied manufactured products for everyday use, as well as parts and components for large industries. The area that has come to be called the ‘Golden Triangle’ — it includes the cities of Gujranwala, Gujrat and Sialkot — could have played a much more important role than it did in developing the Pakistani industry. The small manufacturing concerns located in the triangle could have created supply chains for large industries in East and South Asia.
Looking at today’s Punjab from the perspective of its initial endowments suggests that the province could have made better use of them than it did. Sometimes it was forced into other directions by the circumstances over which its policymakers did not have any control. At other times, it took a different route by choice. The results would have been more satisfying if the province’s rich endowments had become part of a well thought-out development strategy.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 7th, 2013.
COMMENTS (11)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Sajjad Ashraf: I doubt Jhansi Ki Rani came to Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1857. If this is taught in your country, then you have a point.
Mr. Kafir, I am referring to Bahadur Shah Zafar. Didn't the soldiers who rebelled against the British come to the Red Fort asking the king to lead them and he finally did.
Let us not move away from the topic for now.
Ahh the India-Pakistan angle and the resultant shifting of blame to India. Such mundane analysis especially from those who were in the government circles in Pakistan is a leitmotif and the article would have been better off in analyzing endowment without the India angle. If only wishes were horses.................. To expect that India should forever import agricultural commodities is preposterous and silly. India kept importing food-grains for years as the food basket was divided post partition. India had the ignominy to be part of US PL 480 (Food for Peace) program till Norman Borlaugh and MS Swaminathan helped in the first Green Revolution that made India largely self sufficient in food-grain production. But it was limited to Punjab, Haryana and Western UP in India. Contrary to keeping these areas as food surplus in eternity (as author suggests) the Indian government tried to better agricultural practices in other parts as well. The recent bump in rice production is coming from eastern India through the Bringing Green Revolution in Eastern India (BGREI) project is a case in point. From standpoint of regional development it is essential that every region's strength and weakness are analyzed and plans developed for each region. NE India's potential for edible oils is realized off late and a thrust is being provided to reduce the almost $10 billion import bill for edible oils annually (generally imported from Malaysia, Indonesia et al). Perhaps the esteemed author should explain if this huge burden should be allowed to be perpetuated in eternity or a policy adopted to reduce the $10 billion import ? There is also the curious case of Pakistan wanting India to lower its NTBs(Non-Tariff Barriers) while the absence of NTBs in Pakistan is actually a great injustice to the domestic small farmers of Pakistan. But then aid comes at a price, doesn't it ?
Export of agricultural products is music to the Forex reserves but the sectoral GDP contribution of agriculture in these nations is as follows: Denmark(4.5%) Netherlands(1.9%) India(~14%) Pakistan(21.2%). Statistics for India are latest but still by and large one get the picture. All the advanced economies have a minuscule contribution from agriculture and the fact is that in all developed nations the agriculture share has come down and industry and services have taken off. I am perplexed by what the author is trying to convey................
Regarding manufacturing, author is stating that the industrial cities during partition could have supplied to the East Asian markets. Only if entire nations in East Asia slept off. Thailand is No.1 in rice exports worldwide ( India may briefly hold the mantle due to domestic policies of Thai PM Yingluck Shinawatra) but the indispensability of Thai industrial development was felt during the Thai floods of 2011. Almost all electronic majors have manufacturing plants in Thailand and its electronic manufacturing is critical to world economy. Thailand realized eons ago the importance of both agriculture as well as industry. Why is this oriental wisdom so hard to fathom to the policy makers of the subcontinent ? In the current age of globalization fluid and nimble policies should be drafted so that our thinking does not stagnate to nostalgia of the erstwhile ‘Golden Triangle’ as the author puts it. Why do we subcontinental morons brood in the manufactured past glories while not striving for a better future ?
To cover up shortcomings policy makers are always on the lookout for scapegoats and neighbors fit the bill perfectly. Such infantile and banal narrative is detrimental to both the poor nations of the subcontinent. I hope the future generations will be more self-critical.
"..The Indians, through a series of actions, sought to show Pakistan that it was a mistake for a significant number of Muslims to leave India. The Pakistani reaction was based on the assertion of the rights of a newly formed state ..."
Still looking at everything through a 'religious prism' ! The new 'India' too was a newly formed state, with new borders and new govt., and was asserting it's rights as a newly formed state to secure its own food supply! But the author doesn't see that, and instead calls it 'religious retribution' on India's part! Pakistan as a newly formed state could have asserted its rights to look for export markets other than India - but failed to do so! And yet, it is India which is to be blamed! Wow!
@Sajjad Ashraf: Which MUGHAL KING in 1857?
I suggest we respect other view points too. Mr.Burki has all the right to express them.
Just one point from me. Since I am a Pakistani by birth I believe that we understand history in correct perspective and not only what the colonizers say. It was NOT the MUTINY of 1857 but it was a war of independence against the colonization of India. The people of India rose regardless of religion and wanted the Mughal king to assume command of the country against the British excesses.
In modern day jargon anyone seeking freedom today is dubbed as terrorist by the western politicians and media.
Punjab is the only stable, developing and prosperous province in Pakistan not due to its agricultural resources or metal industries but rather due to its people who have a good work ethic and some sense of civic awareness.( By you, Maria )
Versus
The partition of the subcontinent need not have disrupted Punjab’s economic links with India’s food-deficit provinces and its industrial belt. But that happened largely because of the actions taken by the new government in India. ( By the Author )
These two comments have nothing to do with my naive English knowledge. I hope Maria is reading.
Mr. Burki: At times pakistanis complain that the what they got was 'Moth-eaten' pakistan, which was a very poor country with no base to support itself. And here today Mr Burki laments that india was not taking surplus food from Pakistan. However, Ido agree that our leaders took the hard decision To produce the food within country at many cost, than to Purchase it froma belligerant neighbour.
@Raj Kafir: Obviously you have some difficulty reading or understanding English if you say this is one of the "poor articles" I have ever read. If you mean to say it is one of the poorest articles you have ever read, then I would disagree with you because I find it both factual and informative. Punjab is the only stable, developing and prosperous province in Pakistan not due to its agricultural resources or metal industries but rather due to its people who have a good work ethic and some sense of civic awareness.
One of the poor articles I ever read on ET.
"The partition of the subcontinent need not have disrupted Punjab’s economic links with India’s food-deficit provinces and its industrial belt. But that happened largely because of the actions taken by the new government in India" --- I laugh when someone says such things . Independent nations don't depend upon others , specially in case of food production . No doubt , we have a big population , but we are still almost major food producing country on earth , despite having a small portion of Punjab . Again agriculture in Punjab is dependent upon Indus group of rivers which are vulnerable to climate change .Some of our states are doing good in agriculture and they have beat Punjab also . I was taught in school that "you can't make friendship with someone by doing harm to him " . I think You understand what i mean.