covid

Although it has already been tirelessly analyzed by pundits across the political and economic spheres, the best way to characterize the underlying message of the Budget 2021-22 is that Pakistan is “back on its feet.” This can be seen through many of the various line items that together comprise the budget’s financial statements, but it is seen above all in how the moving parts are being reworked for stimulating growth rather than pushing financial consolidation. Pakistan’s spirited political landscape has led to polarizing opinions about this growth-orientation in a challenging domestic and international climate, where the opposition has raised considerable hue-and-cry about fiscal sustainability and rampant inflation, while the government has blamed the opposition’s mismanagement during previous administrations for forcing it to fix their problems before launching a budget that was truly its own. 

Both have some truth in their arguments, and the government’s budgetary attitude reflects a pent-up frustration dealing with economic constraints, a debilitating pandemic (which is nevertheless managed very well), and IMF-imposed austerity. For two budget periods now, the government was forced into a firefighting mode, as with the pandemic, regional security issues (e.g. India’s illegal annexation and division of IIOJK, or the India-Pakistan standoff of early 2019), as well as domestic economic challenges of both a cyclical and structural nature. The government now wants to spread its wings a bit and address the longer-term ambitions that it had set out before coming into office, including: population welfare, social protections, sustainability, and income inequality. These are elements of realizing an Islamic Welfare State paradigm, in which pro-poor policies and structures of social protection drive socioeconomic participation and stability. 

Yet while the government is signalling that the country is back on its feet, it is still an open question whether we are really out of the woods. The country is still in an IMF program, it still has to vaccinate the majority of the population, it has still not gotten complete reprieve from the FATF, it still faces budgetary deficits, and the vast majority of people who should be paying direct taxes underpay or do not pay at all. The budget does not deviate significantly from earlier ones in terms of reliance on indirect taxation, cumbersome tax distortions, and a complex regime of exemptions; not to mention the foreign-borrowing element that compromises longer-term sovereignty. The government’s message is that these should not be causes for constraint but for an expansive policy approach to the economy. 

But an expansive approach must not gloss over the hard work of reforming an off-kilter and imbalanced economic architecture. There are structural issues including a low tax effort, rampant multi-sector corruption, commodity mafias, and rule-of-law issues that bear down on the economy in a longstanding manner. This is where the FATF and IMF also see continued issues in Pakistan’s economy, and rightly so, since they require more political will and reconciliation of competing domestic interests than economic tweaks per se. They are not a function of removing a withholding tax here or adding an exemption there. 

Insofar as the budget offers a signal that things are getting better, one must still watch for the adverse risks that loom over the horizon and into the later part of FY2021-22. The security situation in Afghanistan and the risk of a refugee crisis, or of India seeking to divert public attention from its government’s failures by stirring up something with Pakistan, or indeed something as frightening as contagion of the India-variant of Covid, these are all downward security risks to realizing the ambitions embedded within the current budget. The larger nexus between economy and security should not be lost in the litany of variant line items regarding exemptions, subsidies, and credits. This means that Pakistan will need to continue to invest in its defence requirements, as well as its disaster preparedness, even as the ordinary person’s worldview (and their political persuasion) shall remain circumscribed by the price of Atta and Ghee.

Pakistan has overcome great adversity in only the past three years, and this does allow for some breathing room, as is reflected in the stimulus element of the budget. The recent surge in the stock market reflected in part the expectation of governmental relief measures, as well as a higher than expected GDP figure. However, insofar as the headwinds of the past few years were exogenous (a virus, hybrid warfare, global economic slowdown, aggressive neighbors), the tailwinds were largely exogenous as well. For example, remittances remained strong, the US dollar devalued, exporters gained against competitor countries, and the largest economies (US, China) have bounced back. Yet the question of whether we are really back on our feet, as the attitude of the budget implies, is one that requires further introspection. 

Until the larger sociopolitical factors constraining Pakistan’s potential are not addressed, and its economy is understood by citizens as a national security issue (thus complying with national rather than individual interests), we will only be deploying our budgetary resources at the margins of our national potential. 

The writer is the Director for Economics and National Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS). He can be reached at [email protected].

Image source : Barns-Graham, William. “Post-Brexit Bounceback for Exports Continues as Optimism Grows over UK’s Economic Recovery,” Institute of Export & International Trade, 13 May 2021, www.export.org.uk/news/565378/Post-Brexit-bounceback-for-exports-continues-as-optimism-grows-over-UKs-economic-recovery.htm. Accessed 20 June 2021.


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 »