Train to Pakistan 2004: La, Hore?

veeresh jee: ``As I have said so often before, the InterNet is neutral space, but on the ground matters are different. `` -- oh yes it certainly is oh wise one -- and wont we find that out now :)

and by the way you`re not good as seeing through disguised sarcasm are you uncle jee -- just let me know in advance so we can have a major bear alert sounded for that day -- will ya oh wise one

harry potter -- trust you to step in now -- well the link that you posted happens to be from the australian government`s website -- now isnt that going to be so very objective about the whole issue


harry potter again: ``Of course, you will surely come up with stuff like ``the news is from Aussie media``, but show me a rebuttal of the test results in one Paki or international paper and I will stop posting on Chowk again.

Now we know who the A-hole is. ``

mr harish iyer, the link that you posted regarding the Australian trade minister`s announcement was dated June 8, 2004 -- On june 13, the rebuttal of the GoP was carried in Dawn, Frontier Post, The News and The Daily Times. The link for Dawn is http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/13/ebr16.htm

and the full text is


Wheat: rejoinder to Australian HC


By Our Reporter

ISLAMABAD, June 12: The Pakistan governement refused to accept the Australian wheat mainly on account of phyto-sanitary considerations in order to save its own wheat crop from contamination by fungus detected in the wheat, official spokesman clarified here on Saturday.

The other reason was the below-specification content of glutin to make it palatable as `chapati`.

Commenting on the statement issued by the Australian High Commissioner, he expressed his satisfaction over the fact that the former had admitted the existence at least one of the varieties of fungus that is called ``Tilletia walkeri``.

The black spores of the fungus were identified as such during a scientific test conducted at the National Agriculture Research Centre, Islamabad, under the supervision of an independent committee, which was constituted by Dr Atta-ur-Rehman, Adviser on Science & Technology.

This Committee was headed by another renowned scientist, Dr. Kausar Abdullah Malik, member, Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and not by Dr Atta, as mentioned in the press reports.

The test was carried out in the presence of the Australian Scientists who had admitted the existence of ``Tilletia walkeri``. It was immaterial whether it was ``Tilletia walkeri `` or ``Tilletia indica``. The former was even a greater threat because it is an Australian variety of fungus that does not exist in Pakistan.

Its induction through Australian wheat could potentially infect Pakistani wheat that had no resistance against it, making it almost impossible to get rid of it.

One is reminded here of the unpleasant experience of Pakistan with the Mexi wheat inducted into Pakistan in total disregard of a renowned Pakistani scientist`s objections.

His prediction that this variety would introduce white fungus into Pakistan and menace its wheat economy for all times to come has been proved true. Ever since then, this disease takes a heavy toll of wheat crop every year not only in Pakistan but in neighbouring countries as well.

Regretting that the Australian side had tried to play down the issue by making the rejection of wheat an issue of whether it was fit for human consumption, the spokesman said, at no stage, did the Government of Pakistan say that it was unsafe for human consumption.

It was perfectly safe for humans and, therefore, no harm was expected to accrue from its consumption by the people of UAE, Indonesia and Sri Lanka that have accepted the same Australian wheat.

It poses no threat to their economy as they are not wheat-producing countries. As regards the objection to testing technique, it was enough that the microscopes had established the existence of Tilletia walkeri, a deadly contaminant of wheat.

The second ground of rejection was the low glutin content, the spokesman explained. It was only 23pc to 24pc below the minimum contract-specific limit of 26pc. There are several qualities of wheat available in Australia and the wheat with lower glutin costs of 25 to 30 dollars per ton less.

Such wheat can be used for making breads but is not good for ``chapattis`` that is the primary use of wheat in Pakistan. The Australians had not contested the fact that their consignment of wheat did not meet the contract specification of glutin content but decided to focus their argument only on which variety of fungus contaminates the wheat, the spokesman added.

As regards Islamabad`s refusal to accept third-party test of Australian wheat, he said the contract agreement had envisaged only bilateral settlement in the event of a dispute.



Now Harry jee, will you please stick to your pledge as mentioned in post no. 443 or will you disappoint us?


(strange waisay because I have seen letters in Dawn by someone with your name - must be you perhaps, and thought you would have read it a bit more closely)

friend its neither -- all able bodied men were called out for active duty this week after a bear was spotted swimming the effluent filled hudiara drain -- we are all just doing our duty `friend` jee to rid our country of this pestilence :) -- unfortunately our options are limited given that the GoP has banned bear baiting, or else that would have been fun

veeresh #441 that`s what i like to see - your writing about your illusions in a joking manner. it is when you present them seriously that i worry about you. ;-)

rsridhar #440 what i was referring to was pakistan panjab having moved into cash crops much more than east panjab - and that is reflected in item 3 of the points you made. you dont mention the subsidies, but as i said, agriculture in east panjab is much more subsidized than in the west.

on your points 1 and 2, that was indeed my understanding too - i.e. foodgrain productivity is higher in east panjab. also (although you dont mention it) my understanding that land distribution is more even in east panjab. indeed, it is these two things that i had mentioned to a friend of mine a few months ago (who happens to be a foreign senior economist dealing with both india and pakistan), and he had mentioned the two points i had made earlier. another individual (an economist with the pakistan government) had independently confirmed these points as well. so i assume they are also correct, although they do not contradict (as i said) your points 1 and 2.

the thing is: such comparisons of economic progress are win-win situations. if india is ahead in something, that is something good for pakistan, and vice versa. it is only the policy of military and political confrontation of the two governments that is a lose-lose situation (the spite and hatred demonstrated by many indian posters on chowk that i have been having a bit of fun with on this board pales in comparison to the real losses suffered by both countries in terms of unproductive military expenditures and lost opportunities for mutually beneficial economic and cultural exchanges).

HP #442 in response to your request, i matched AlephNull with the CREIP categories and believe he is inbetween numbers 420 and 426 (please see my post #232 where the defintiions - developed by kkandk - are provided). ;-)

#442 by HP

[This CREIP is trying to speculate on something he has no knowledge about. After memorizing the dictionary.Com, this CREIP has also memorized DAWN, the NEWS, the Nation, The daily times, and many other English newspapers from Pakistan and knows every thing about the deal.]

That you resort to abuse even without putting up a semblance of a rebuttal shows you have no concrete counter.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1053360.htm

Excerpt:

``My feeling is that Pakistan has found that their crop is bigger than they thought, they really don`t need the 150,000 tonnes they bought some weeks ago from the AWB and are looking for excuses to cancel the contract.``

Although the Paki Govt. did pay for the wheat in advance, a cancellation meant the Aussies would have had to refund the amount.

UK tests clear Australian wheat of Karnal bunt contamination

Excerpt:

``Results from independent tests conducted in the United Kingdom have found no evidence of Karnal bunt in a consignment of Australian wheat rejected earlier this year by Pakistan, the Australian Ministers for Trade, Mark Vaile, and Agriculture, Warren Truss, announced today.``

Of course, you will surely come up with stuff like ``the news is from Aussie media``, but show me a rebuttal of the test results in one Paki or international paper and I will stop posting on Chowk again.

Now we know who the A-hole is.

#438 by AlephNull

“they did try to avoid paying the Aussies some months back on the plea of karnal bunt fungus”

Now this A-hole works for either:

A) The govt. of Pakistan, or
B) The Australian exporter.

He has the inside scoop! This CREIP knows everything about the deal.
First he tried to be knowledgeable about the car business and now this CREIP knows about the agriculture business too.

This CREIP is trying to speculate on something he has no knowledge about. After memorizing the dictionary.Com, this CREIP has also memorized DAWN, the NEWS, the Nation, The daily times, and many other English newspapers from Pakistan and knows every thing about the deal.
What a CREIP! # (Tahmed or KKKandK! can you provide the number for this CREIP now).
You know A-Hole, CREIP! If you wanna speculate on something how about speculating on this:
Figure out a way to separate Manure from the produce you eat every day.
A-hole.

Omar/421 - thanks for the invite, accepted graciously, I am going to be in Karachi sooner than planned, and shall surely accept your double gracious offer. As I have said so often before, the InterNet is neutral space, but on the ground matters are different.

I am even as I type this, truly, preparing my purple and pink 1967 Ambassador into a flying roof cut-away open car with rear bench and Reich-type rear wedge so that visitors from Pakistan can get a better view as I drive them around Delhi (instead of from inside a closed car, you know?). My volunteer driver is a close friend from Holland who bears an uncanny resemblance to Lord Mountbatten and has a period chauffer`s uniform which looks very much like that white stuff with gold and braid that the Man from Burma wore.

Now stop getting upset at me, please?

And start working on an imaginary scenario where the Kumbh is held simultenously with the Raiwind love-fest?

AlephNull #438 If you continue to be so sarcastic, you will give yourself an ulcer. Take a deep breath and say to yourself: ``banda ban! banda ban!`` (be a man, be a man). ha! ha!

re: Agricultural output: Indian versus Pakistani Punjab
AlephNull, Tahmed,
Please read the links and the excerpts.
I am just giving some links to put things in perspective. I hope i am not offending anyone.
http://www.dawn.com/2004/06/28/ebr12.htm
(Two of the main cash crops of the two provinces are rice and wheat. Pakistan`s yields in both crops are far behind the other Punjab. For instance, Indian Punjab has shown an annual production growth rate of 11.03 per cent for rice while it has been a mere 3.08 per cent for Punjab in Pakistan.

Indian Punjab produced 14.36 million tons of wheat in 1996- 98 from 3.3 million hectares while the output in Pakistan`s Punjab was 13.13 million tons from 5.9 million ha. Even in other periods, productivity on the other side of Wahga has been consistently higher.)

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030329/edit.htm#5

1. (The two Punjabs adopted the green revolution technology for wheat, rice, and cotton besides some other crops. One common method to measure performance is in terms of growth in output per acre. On this measure, the Indian Punjab led Pakistani Punjab in wheat (3.6 per cent annual growth versus 2.2 per cent) and the latter in cotton (1.6 per cent vs. 3.6 per cent) but outperformed rice (4.1 per cent vs. 0).

As a result of this growth, at the end of the first green revolution period (mid-1990s), the Indian Punjabi farmer produced 3643 kg per hectare of wheat which was nearly twice his Pakistani counterpart’s output of 1902 kg per hectare. In rice, the Indian Punjabi farmer’s output of 3426 kg per hectare was nearly three times the Pakistani Punjabi farmer’s output of 1215 kg per hectare. Pakistani Punjabi farmer’s poor performance in rice was because he was switching to low yield but high value Basmati rice needed for export.)

2. (According to a World Bank study by Ringku Murgai and Derek Byerlee and By Mubarik Ali from the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, “It turns out that the difference in growth in the two Punjabs is largely because the Indian farmers use more inputs than their Pakistani counterparts. On average, the Indian Punjabi farmer applied 156-kg of fertiliser per hectare, twice Pakistani Punjabi farmer’s 86 kg per hectare. Also, the Indian farmer used more machinery (41 hours per hectare vs 15). But there was little difference in access to irrigation (91 per cent of total land under irrigation vs. 86 per cent). Indian Punjabi farmers appear to use more tubewells (104 per 1000 hectares vs. 26) but this may be illusory because the Pakistani tubewells are generally larger.”

In terms of mechanisation, irrigation, inputs like power, fertiliser and other pesticides, Indian Punjab has been consistently in the lead. Number of tubewells is three times more, as is the case with tractors.)

3. (Farmers in Pakistani Punjab did better in the production of cotton, some pulses and livestock in the final stages of the green revolution. The government short of foreign exchange aimed at long staple cotton for export and encourages farmers through incentives, as was the case with Basmati rice. India has focused on low yielding short staple varieties for home consumption. Here too, Punjab did well except in the last five years due to salinity of water and attack by blow worm.)
Sridhar

Tahmed #417

You are right. Indian Punjab is still languishing growing food crops while Pakistani Punjab has moved ahead into cash crops. Meanwhile Pakistan has had to import wheat (sharp businessmen that they are, they did try to avoid paying the Aussies some months back on the plea of karnal bunt fungus). I understand Pakistani Punjab is also the home of such enlightened institutions as Okara Military Farms. Do the serfs oops lessees grow cash crops on that model farm as well?

Rsridhar #435

I remember a report that Tavleen Singh wrote after her visit to Pakistan during the Lahore fake bonhomie of early 1999. She spoke of Lahore looking shabby and run down and of not being a patch on Delhi. I took her at her word then but perhaps there is some ancient intra-Punjab rivalry at work of which I have no inkling. She also seemed to indicate that the portions of rural Pakistani Punjab that she saw had fallen far behind Indian Punjab and Haryana in visible development. That would seem to be consistent with the economic indicators. Indian Punjab leads other states and the Indian average in most economic indicators though not in human development. Pakistani Punjab makes up about 55% of Pakistan’s population so would be a major contributor to Pakistan’s much poorer statistics. I was looking for confirmation on all this from Veeresh but what he has written so far is somewhat equivocal even though many of his observations have scions of the Pakistani ruling class foaming at the mouth.

kaurasach: rathore is gujjubania alias shamsul alias islamicextremist trying (as usual) to make up for the imbalance in morons by posing as a pakistani.

rsridhar #434 do you remember what they said? anyway, may both panjab`s prosper. as well as all other parts of south asia and the world. God knows the poor people deserve a break, regardless of whether they are in india or pakistan. (the hell with the cheapster desi babus, though).

re: my post # 420
Some errors in that post:
``...India (which now includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) had cornered about19-29% of world trade...``

Should read as:
``... India (which then included present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) had cornered about 19-21% of world trade...``
Sorry for the error.
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts