carving up

At present, Pakistan’s cement per capita consumption is only half of the world average (around 200kg versus 520kg for the world). This suggests that there is more than ample opportunity for secular growth in the industry, without the need for cartel shenanigans. The CPEC megaproject and increased urbanisation already offer a strong case for the cement sector to play a clean game with robust prospects.

For sugar, by contrast, Pakistan’s per capita consumption of 25kg per person in fact exceeds the world average of 22kg, but it is marred by inequalities of consumption, and a rising middle class could balance the consumption across the country in a more equitable way. However, there is a strong case for reducing sugar consumption domestically, since high sugar consumption can trigger a variety of chronic diseases including diabetes, obesity, heart disease, liver problems, cognitive problems, and even some cancers. In the longer-run, the healthcare costs associated with treating such diseases far outweighs the profits of industry players. Yet the sugar cartel is likely to gouge our livers before the sugar they sell will ruin our health.

Taking a step back, a society must ask the larger question from such major economic sectors in terms of the risks that they pose to its security when they behave in such a manner. If mafias and cartels characterise our major industries, then they extract excessive profits at the expense of the public, even when public subsidies, infrastructure, and material support help them to function. The security risk that cartel behaviour poses rests in ballooning prices that cut into the purchasing power of ordinary citizens. As inflation rises, it erodes the economic power of a society. Inflation that is too high sends people into the streets. This is why cartels must be kept in check, for they weaken the public economy by expropriating profits for private interest.

The same threat emerges from tax evasion, which stifles public investment potential while enriching oligarchic interests. The tax proceeds which might have been used to strengthen government spending on public requirements instead end up in the hands of private power, and society is all the worse for it. A dynamic market economy depends on respect and fairness, without which it can easily fall prey to private schemes that sabotage the national interest. While Pakistan’s regulatory authorities are working hard to stem such acts, the onus lies with the owners of capital who are expropriating in excess. The government can provide them all the relief and support in the world, but they are wont to refuse even a slice of that gain to the consumer. That is when the public must carve up the cartels.

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is the Director for Economics and National Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS). The article was first published in The Nation. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »