Latest news with #Afro-Asian

The Wire

6 days ago

Business
The Wire

The Search for the ‘Bandung Spirit'

Support independent journalism. Donate Now World While Bandung's call for political independence across the colonies has in fact been met, the economic independence and egalitarian development path it advocated are still substantially unrealised. The plenary session during the historic Bandung Conference. Photo: Public domain. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now This April marked the 70th anniversary of the Bandung conference held in Indonesia in 1955, that brought together high-level representatives from 29 countries, most of which had won independence from colonial rule in the wave of decolonisation that accompanied the onset and advance of the Second World War. The 1955 event that is a kind of milestone in global history since the middle of the 20th century was remarkable in many ways. Though a meeting of leaders rather than of people, it did appear to have the enthusiastic support and sanction of the populations that had won political freedom from imperialist domination. The proceedings and the outcome document had a strong anti-colonial flavour, reflected in the declaration that 'colonialism in all its manifestations is an evil which should speedily be brought to an end'. The reference to 'all manifestations' clearly implied that the challenge was not merely to root out the still present instances of colonial domination, but to stem the onset of neocolonial domination in the then Third World. The conference reflected the mood in Afro-Asian nations. The prevailing sense was that it was imperative to keep imperialism at bay, for which these leaders together committed themselves to and demanded of others recognition of the equality of nations 'large and small', and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty. Implicit in this case for the establishment of a democratic international order was the idea that the nation state was the entity that matters and the assertion that national governments were more representative of their peoples than any self-designated international rule-making authority. Class character There were of course differences in the perception regarding the potential and ability of the states in newly independent countries to pursue autonomous development that helped fortify political freedom with economic independence. One the one hand, there were those who held the position that in the post-war world the potential for the development of new autonomous capitalist societies was fundamentally limited even if countries won political independence. Their ability to have a transformative influence, depended on the class character of national governments that came to power at Independence. Only if those states were led by forces representing the interests of the peasantry and the formal and informal working class, as opposed to indigenous industrial capitalists and big landed interests in coalition, that the structural changes needed to create the conditions for more egalitarian development based on indigenous capabilities and domestic markets would be ensured. The victory of Communist led forces in revolutionary wars in China and Vietnam, the continuation in power of governments with an avowedly pro-people development agendas (unlike in some other contexts), and the formation of an uneasy 'socialist bloc' along with the then Soviet Union, seemed to provide support for those advocating this form of transformation. It was not just the state that must be the bulwark against imperialism and the driver of autonomous development, but that state must in the interests of the hitherto exploited and marginalised lead a process of institutional change that attacks land monopoly and non-agricultural asset concentration. But a majority of countries that won Independence during the decolonisation years that followed the Second World War, while coming to power on the basis of mass movements against colonial rule, represented a coalition of landed and industrial interests. Despite declaring intent to pursue a radical programme, they failed in practice to implement much needed land reforms that by breaking down land monopoly and releasing peasant energies, would have dismantled barriers to productivity increase in agriculture, raised mass incomes and raised consumption, and generated the wage goods surpluses needed to support economic diversification away from agriculture. This failure, in ways which we cannot elaborate here, limited the growth of the domestic market and held back autonomous development, as well as left untouched the structural constraints leading to bouts of inflation and periodic balance of payments crises. This was true of countries from which some of the inspiring leaders at Bandung – Indonesia's President Sukarno, India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser for example – came. In time, with the failure of autonomous development in the form of 'import substituting industrialisation', these countries would all drop their progressive agendas and embrace neoliberalism, owning that agenda rather than opposing it as an imposition by neocolonial powers. The core constraint The Bandung cohort did realise that they had responsibilities to their peoples who fought for political freedom, installed them as leaders, and gave them the social sanction to advance the project of autonomous and independent development. The issue they faced was not just that of raising productivity and per capita income but of addressing the asset inequality that would deprive that majority of the benefits of post-independence development. That, in turn, would prevent the emergence of a domestic market needed to support a process of development that would be less dependent on international markets dominated by the developed countries and on the foreign investors whose support would be needed to obtain any foothold in those markets. In sum, the less developed countries would have to pursue more egalitarian strategies with a major or even dominant role for the State, as well as cooperate with each other to create combined markets and realise the scale needed to support the diversification of economic activity. Seven decades after the Bandung conclave, its vision appears to have been only partially realised and does not seem to have the needed purchase among governments who are seen as central to breaking the shackles of global economic inequality. After a brief honeymoon with the ideals that were espoused at Bandung, States in most post-colonial countries lost the will to stand up to imperialism and push ahead with strategies that could have helped them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. They had failed to deliver on the promises based on which the mass upsurge against imperialism was mobilised, having gone too far to accommodate the demands of powerful, asset owning vested interests and their elite backers. This not only resulted in the persistence to different degrees of inequality, poverty and social deprivation, but also subverted the effort to pursue autonomous and successful development. The result was the loss of support from those advocating or aspiring for national development. Also read: Unchallenged at Home and Abroad: Jawaharlal Nehru's Leadership With the Non-Aligned Movement By the 1970s, governments in most less developed countries were faced with a development impasse. To resolve that, they turned to the surfeit of liquidity that flooded global markets following the rise to dominance of finance starting in the 1980s. Rather than stand up to foreign capital and influence, expand domestic markets, and build domestic capabilities, they embraced neoliberalism in the hope that they can leverage foreign investment and finance to restructure themselves as export engines growing on the basis of markets in countries they had promised to win economic independence from. The result has been heighted vulnerability, extreme volatility, and social retrogression. The exceptions However, the Bandung promise of a pushback against imperialism was kept alive and was rejuvenated by the revolutions in China and Vietnam. Victory in the Vietnam war, the 50th anniversary of which is being celebrated this year, highlighted a model form of the national liberation struggle in Vietnam and marked the completion of the Vietnamese revolution. The synchronisation of that important anniversary with the 70th anniversary of Bandung has partly strengthened the call for a revival of the Bandung spirit. It is true that China and Vietnam too embraced 'reform', expanded the space for private initiative and relied on external markets to accelerate growth. But their success along that path, despite its many adverse consequences, is in no small measure due to the strengths and resilience built during years of 'socialist' development. The idea that the character of the leadership of the national liberation struggle was crucial has an interesting history. It originated in the view articulated at the Sixth Congress of the Communist international in 1928, in the 'Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in Colonial and Semi-colonial Countries'. That view had held that 'When the dominant imperialist power needs social support in the colonies it makes an alliance first and foremost with the dominant classes of the old pre-capitalist system, the feudal type commercial and moneylending bourgeoisie, against the majority of the people.' However, subsequent analyses did not either restrict that kind of alliance only to the colonial period or limit it to one between feudalism and imperialism. Rather, the possibility, especially after the October Revolution, that any attack on feudal land monopoly could develop into a movement against private property itself, was seen to necessitate a compromise between the 'national bourgeoisie' and feudal landlordism in the post-colonial period. As a result, the ability of the post-colonial state, constructed in part by an incipient capitalist class to sustain successful industrialisation, was also seen as limited. What this position went on to argue was that the fall-out of this correlation of forces constrained industrialisation and capitalist development in three ways: (1) It sapped the ability of emerging elites in underdeveloped countries to radically transform agrarian relations, and thereby constrained growth of the domestic market and manoeuvrability of the State; (2) It transformed the underdeveloped countries into a sink for surpluses to finance that process of accumulation; and (3) It subordinated local production and markets to the needs of capital accumulation on a world scale, resulting in growing external vulnerability. The argument was not that capitalist development would not occur, but that such development would be characterised by extreme gradualism, its effects on wage earners and the salariat would be immiserising, and that at all times it would be characterised by the utmost external vulnerability making the pace of development dependent on the access of domestic elites to international capital. The questionable alternative 'models' This view was sought to be skirted subsequently by a very specific interpretation of the successful diffusion of capitalism into two countries with a special history. if we take the post-World War II period (and therefore treat Japan since the Meiji restoration separately), there have been only two countries that have made the developmental transition within a market economy framework, in the sense of having moved from backward to developed-country status: South Korea and Taiwan. Other countries that had made that transition were either part of the Soviet Union and not market economies in any meaningful sense, and China and Vietnam which show some promise of making that transition have a very specific non-market, pre-'market-economy', history. In sum, South Korea and Taiwan are more exceptions rather than the rule. There are some telling similarities between these two that make them exceptional. Externally, South Korea and Taiwan were countries that became 'independent' after having been liberated from Japanese imperialism by the United States, that placed them under occupation. That resulted in a special, even if subordinate relationship with the US and them, strengthened by the fact that these were frontier states in a geopolitics marked by Cold War conflicts. They also served as important rest, recuperation and refuelling bases for American troops during the Vietnam war. Not surprisingly, despite being geographically not too large, as of September 2022 South Korea was host to 73 US military bases. This special relation not only gave the country easier access and special privileges in the markets of the US and its allies, but special access to private international capital markets at a time when developing countries were being shunned by international banks. South Korea was a 'semi-core' rather than 'peripheral' country. It was the periphery of metropolitan capitalism, rather being a peripheral country in global capitalism. The State here mattered not because it was a bulwark against imperialism, but because it was the instrument through which imperialism consciously facilitated their development to establish them as 'frontier states'. Contemporary relevance It is in this background that we must assess the relevance of the Bandung agenda today, when international inequality and the push of capital from the North to the South have locked many less developed countries in a debt trap; when the developed nations refuse to recognise their prime responsibility for redressing the effects of past carbon emissions that triggered the current climate crisis; and, when developed countries turn inward and seek to resolve their domestic problems by shutting out the less developed from presence in their markets. The global majority countries are once again recognising that they need to stand on their own feet, shape autonomous development strategies, and cooperate to strengthen each other. But to pursue that agenda they need to break out of the grip of neoliberalism, enhance domestic policy space and reverse and unravel asset and income inequality to grow local markets. That requires social pressure and transformation. This possibly explains why, though 'Bandung' was a landmark that received popular support in Afro-Asian nations, the 70th anniversary passed with scattered celebrations that were little more than a token recognition of the importance of the occasion. Underlying this absence of the Bandung spirit is the reality that, while Bandung's call for political independence across the colonies has in fact been met, the economic independence and egalitarian development path it advocated are still substantially unrealised. But that makes a case not for dropping the Bandung agenda, but for recognising that there are prerequisite for reviving the Bandung spirit, which has gained a new relevance. However, the changed circumstances also pose new challenges. What the embrace of neoliberalism did was that it set off competition among these poorer countries to win larger shares of the limited world market open to them. Wages were kept down, foreign investors were wooed and developed country governments appeased in order to emerge the winner. Few did, but even when they did the outcome was not adequate to ensure coveted membership of the rich nations club. The result largely was greater dependence, excessive external debt, subordination and extreme vulnerability. Meanwhile, whatever growth occurred largely bypassed the poor. And when the US administration under Trump decided to weaponise tariffs and held out the threat of being shut out of the American markets, governments in even the more 'successful' countries, had to rush to negotiate and offer concessions that are likely to set back development and hurt most those who have been marginal beneficiaries of whatever development has occurred. That weakness explains the muted response to attempts to recall Bandung. It poses a challenge to democratic forces and civil society actors when seeking to revive the spirit of Bandung and realise its ambitions. They must struggle to put in place truly representative governments committed to pursuing the goals that inspired national liberation struggles the world over. C.P. Chandrasekhar is the Global Research Director at International Development Economics Associates (IDEAs). He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and was engaged in teaching and research at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University for more than 30 years. In commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, IDEAs, Yukthi and Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies have organised a two-day conference in Colombo, Srilanka on June 2 and 3 at the historic venue of the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall, which was the site of the 5th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. Read more about it here. This article was originally published on the IDEAs website. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. World Musk Slams Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as 'Abomination' View More

Unchallenged at Home and Abroad: Jawaharlal Nehru's Leadership With the Non-Aligned Movement

The Wire

27-05-2025

Politics
The Wire

Unchallenged at Home and Abroad: Jawaharlal Nehru's Leadership With the Non-Aligned Movement

May 27 is the death anniversary of Jawaharlal Nehru. As the nation observes today the 61st death anniversary of India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, not only the architect of modern India but also of its foreign policy, it may be worth recalling his role in the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement six decades ago. This month marks the 70th anniversary of conference of Afro-Asian countries held in Bandung, approximately 100 miles from the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, in the last week of May 1955. It was the Bandung Conference which laid the foundations of the Non-Aligned Movement that was to be later inaugurated in the then Yugoslavian capital of Belgrade in 1961. The Asian Relations Conference was held in New Delhi from March 23 to April 2, 1947 at the initiative of Jawaharlal Nehru, then the Vice-President of Viceroy's Executive Council (interim Prime Minister). It was the first conference of Asian countries ever and Nehru chose Sarojini Naidu, the tallest woman Congress leader (she was president of the Indian National Congress in 1925) to preside over the conference. This was perhaps symbolic of many strides towards women empowerment that India would take after gaining independence a few months later. As many as 243 delegates from 28 Asian countries participated in the conference which was held in Purana Qila (Old Fort) in New Delhi. Nehru declared in words that have become memorable to be often quoted in the context of India's foreign policy: 'For too long we, of Asia, have been petitioners in Western courts and chancelleries. That story must now belong to the past. We propose to stand on our own feet and to co -operate with all others who are prepared to co-operate with us. We do not intend to be plaything of others.' Even five months before the conference, within a week of taking over as the interim prime minister, Nehru broadcast to the nation on September 7, 1946: 'We propose, as far as possible, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another, which have led in the past to world war, and which may again lead to disasters on an even vaster scale…We are particularly interested in the emancipation of colonial and dependent countries and peoples, and in the recognition in theory and practice of equal opportunities for all races.' Thus, all the principles of India's foreign policy were enunciated by Nehru at the dawn of the nation's independence: non-alignment, freedom, honour, non-interference and equality of peoples and nations. With Nehru as the pivot, India, Indonesia and Burma became the nexus of an independent Asian viewpoint. In 1954 when Gamel Abdul Nasser became the leader of the new Republic of Egypt, the West started putting pressure on him to join the Baghdad Pact. But he was influenced by the example of the three Asian countries and refused to join the Anglo-American pact. Nehru seized the opportunity to broaden the base by including Egypt and other African countries to create a distinctive Afro-Asian presence in world affairs. The idea of a wider conference of Asian and African countries had been earlier mooted at the South East Asian Prime Ministers conference in Colombo, April 1954. Unchallenged at home, by the beginning of 1955, Nehru had also emerged as one of the most influential leaders in the world. As S. Gopal, wrote in Jawaharlal Nehru – A Biography ( Volume 2, 1947- 1956): 'Abroad his status was equally unchallenged. No single individual had done more, in the years since the Second World War, to project Asia on to the world stage.' The stage was now set for the first meeting of Afro Asian countries that President Sukarno of Indonesia offered to host at Bandung which an Arab delegate thought 'did not look an Asian city at all. It was too clean.' The conference was held for seven days in the last week of April 1955. But a month earlier, Nehru, who religiously kept parliament informed of all matters – national and international – told the Lok Sabha on March 31: 'When the history of this time is written in the future, two things will stand. One is coming of atomic energy, and the other the emergence of Asia…This conference is something historic. It is unique. Of course, no such thing has ever happened before and the fact of representatives of 1,400 million people meeting even though they have differences amongst themselves is a matter of utmost significance.' Twenty-nine countries of Asia and Africa were invited to Bandung, including China for the inclusion of which both Nehru and U Nu of Burma had to make extraordinary efforts to convince those who were strongly opposed to China's participation. The plenary session during the historic Bandung Conference. Photo: Public domain. The conference lasted seven days, the highlights of which are best described in the words of Nehru himself: 'The Bandung Conference has played an important role. It has represented various forces that have been developing in the past few years and has compelled the attention of other countries to these new developments. While the fact that there are some new independent countries in Asia is known to everybody, the real significance of this is not always appreciated. There is, in large parts of Asia and Africa, an intense desire to be left free to work out our destiny. We want progress at a rapid rate. But with all our past memories of colonial domination, we suspect any attempt at interference or patronage… 'The aggressive attitudes of communism or anti communism find no echo with us and we see no reason whatever why we should lose our own individuality, give up our thinking and become a mere camp follower of others… 'We are little tired of the conflicts and hatreds of Europe and see no reason why we should succumb to them…The Bandung Conference was the first clear enunciation by the countries of Asia especially that they have an individuality and viewpoint which they are not prepared to give up because of the views of or pressure from other countries.' But, he cautioned, it would be absurd to expect that the Bandung Conference would lead to the solution of international problems: 'The Bandung Conference should not be judged so much from the forceful speeches delivered but from the joint statement issued at the end.' The joint communique established 10 principles for developing friendship and cooperation among nations some of which were: a) respect for the fundamental human rights and principles of the UN Charter; b) respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nation; c) abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country; d) refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country; e) settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means; f) recognition of the equality of all races and nations; and g) respect for justice and international obligations. Earlier, on May 3, while briefing the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP), the Nehru said: 'A rather remarkable thing is that at the conclusion of the Conference almost every country has commended it, has approved of it- certainly the American press, the British press, the French press, the Russian press, the Chinese press and others. It is a remarkable thing that something should be done which is approved of by all these people who usually never agree about anything.' Winston Churchill, Nehru's one-time foe, wrote to him, almost two months after Bandung, on June 30, 1955: 'I always admired your ardent wish for peace and the absence of bitterness in your consideration of the antagonisms that had in the past divided us. Yours is indeed a heavy burden and responsibility, shaping the destiny of your many millions of countrymen, and playing your outstanding part in world affairs.' In this letter, and another one he had written a few months earlier Churchill used the phrase 'the light of Asia' for Nehru. So what may be the relevance of Bandung today? Its 70th anniversary is a good opportunity for India, Indonesia and some other countries of Asia and Africa, to revive the Non-Aligned Movement, which in the words of late prime minister Indira Gandhi, the chairperson of the movement in 1983, was the 'history's biggest peace movement.' In a recent article in a daily, former foreign secretary Shyam Saran wrote: 'The Bandung Principles or Das Sila remain valid as norms for inter-state relations and for creating a more democratic world order. They should be revived. NAM, which incorporated the Bandung Spirit, became the the largest peace movement in history, creating a zone of peace between contending ideological and military blocs. We need a similar space free of great power contestation.' But for that to happen India needs a leadership that has the wisdom, vision and global stature of Jawaharlal Nehru. Praveen Davar is an ex-Army officer, columnist and editor of The Secular Saviour.

Replace Afro-Asian philosophy paper with Indian traditions course, recommends DU panel

Indian Express

06-05-2025

General
Indian Express

Replace Afro-Asian philosophy paper with Indian traditions course, recommends DU panel

Delhi University's Standing Committee on Academic Matters has recommended replacing the proposed Afro-Asian Philosophy paper with a course on Indian philosophical traditions in the 8th semester of BA (Hons.) Philosophy programme, The Indian Express has learnt. The panel aims to introduce an 'Indian perspective' and reduce focus on global traditions, 'shaped by Western colonialism', as per sources. As per the objectives stated by the department, Afro-Asian Philosophy, which is a generic elective (GE 8D), aims 'to introduce students to diverse philosophical traditions of Asian and African countries; highlight the importance of indigenous knowledge and cultural heritage in the backdrop of Western colonialism; promote intercultural dialogue and mutual understanding between Asian and African civilizations; and encourage students to appreciate and respect diverse philosophical perspectives.' The recommendation, discussed by the committee last Friday, comes amid a wider curriculum overhaul across departments, as part of the National Education Policy 2020, which calls for integrating Indian knowledge systems and reviewing undergraduate course structures across disciplines. The paper is open to final-year undergraduate students, including those from outside the Philosophy department. Speaking to The Indian Express on condition of anonymity, an official familiar with the committee's deliberations said, 'The panel believed this is a generic elective; [these are] usually offered to students from outside the department too. So, they wanted a paper on Indian philosophy to be introduced to help students develop a basic understanding of Indian philosophical perspectives.' 'It was also pointed out that the paper on Indian philosophy is richer in tradition than the Afro-Asian course,' the official added. It is learnt that the new course will cover the basics of classical Indian schools of philosophy, such as Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, and Purva Mimamsa, among others. The suggestion has prompted criticism from a section of the faculty, who argued that the proposed shift undercuts the comparative and postcolonial emphasis of the existing syllabus. 'Why would someone want to teach the basics of Indian philosophy in the eighth semester?' said a faculty member, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'There are already several courses in the earlier semesters that cover these foundational schools. The point of Afro-Asian Philosophy was to allow comparative engagement and critical dialogue across global traditions — this change diminishes that aim.' Structured over four units, the syllabus of the African-Asian Philosophy course introduces students to Indian, Chinese, Japanese, African, and Arabic philosophical traditions. Authors featured include P T Raju, Tsenay Serequeberhan, Karl Potter, Kwasi Wiredu, and Samuel Oluoch Imbo. Students explore how colonial histories shaped these philosophies, and students are encouraged to 'develop broader and more inclusive understanding of global philosophical thought,' as per the course outcomes. Several faculty members described the committee's recommendation as part of a trend toward curricular narrowing, with an overemphasis on repetition of Indian philosophy and Indian perspectives across syllabi. The Indian Express reached out to Enakshi Mitra, Head of the Department of Philosophy, who declined to comment. The proposal will be tabled before the Academic Council in the coming weeks, where a final decision is expected.

Economic future of Pakistan: Pivotal role of private sector highlighted

Business Recorder

25-04-2025

Business
Business Recorder

Economic future of Pakistan: Pivotal role of private sector highlighted

WASHINGTON: The Embassy of Pakistan in Washington DC hosted a landmark economic dialogue on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank Spring Meetings, bringing together Pakistan's economic leadership, global financial institutions, and corporate representatives from the United States. The event showcased Pakistan's remarkable economic turnaround and its potential as a global investment destination. Finance Minister Senator Muhammad Aurangzeb, in his keynote address, emphasized the pivotal role of the private sector in driving Pakistan's economic future, stating that the government's role was to provide policy frameworks and ensure continuity. He described this shift as a 'mindset and societal change,' likening it to the transformative impact of artificial intelligence. IMF lowers Pakistan's FY25 GDP growth forecast to 2.6% Engaging in a candid dialogue, the Finance Minister addressed questions related to the ease of doing business and reiterated the Government's unwavering commitment to the reform process. He identified population growth and climate change as two major existential issues, calling for private-sector collaboration on investable projects, leveraging available financing and technical expertise. He reaffirmed the Prime Minister's vision of running Pakistan as 'Pakistan Inc.' with the government acting as public servants to facilitate investors. Ambassador Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, in his welcome remarks, highlighted Pakistan's geostrategic and geo-economic significance as a market of 250 million people and a gateway to Central Asia, China, the GCC, and Afro-Asian regions. He also showcased the country's economic performance, as acknowledged at the IMF-World Bank forums, and underlined Pakistan's strengths in the IT sector and mineral resources. He announced plans for recurring events to strengthen U.S.-Pakistan business ties. 'As Pakistan's Chief Marketing Officer, I invite you to profit from the promise of Pakistan,' he added. Amir Ibrahim, CEO of Jazz, Pakistan's largest cellular provider, lauded the country's economic stabilization over the past 15 months. He urged optimism, noting Jazz's transformation into a digital services platform reaching over 100 million users. He stressed the importance of inclusive digital infrastructure and working with regulators to democratize access to technology. Christos Harpantidis, Vice President External Affairs at Philip Morris, acknowledged the company's $800 million investment in Pakistan and shared plans to expand further. He attributed this decision to economic stability, controlled inflation, and exchange rate predictability. Husnain Aslam, CEO of TRG, highlighted the global footprint of his IT holding company employing 35,000 individuals, including 9,000 in Pakistan. He supported the Prime Minister's goal of scaling IT exports from $3 billion to $25–30 billion, citing Pakistan's telecom infrastructure and young talent pool. Martin Raiser, World Bank Vice President for South Asia, commended Pakistan's economic turnaround driven by fiscal, energy, and exchange rate reforms.

Economic future: Pivotal role of private sector highlighted