imports

Islamabad, Pakistan – In the spring of 2025, Pakistan and India severed most of their remaining links after years of acrimony.

Gunmen had killed 26 people in Pahalgam in India-administered Kashmir that April. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for the attack – Islamabad denied any role – and put the Indus Waters Treaty, governing the sharing of rivers flowing into Pakistan, in abeyance. Pakistan retaliated by closing its airspace to Indian airlines, shutting the Wagah border crossing and suspending trade.

By May, the nuclear-armed neighbours were exchanging missile and drone strikes. Four days of fighting ended in a ceasefire on May 10, for which United States President Donald Trump claimed credit.

Eighteen months later, data from Pakistan’s central bank suggested trade is gradually recovering.

Pakistan imported goods worth $61.7m from India from July to September this year, up 69 percent from the same period a year earlier, according to the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP).

Here is what the data show, what Pakistan buys from India and how the trade is continuing:

What do the latest figures show?

The SBP records payments made by Pakistani banks for imports, broken down by country. From July to September 2025, payments for Indian imports totalled $36.6m.

After the conflict, monthly payments fell from $20m in April 2025 just before the four-day war to $9.2m in June and $8.2m in July before recovering to $19.6m in September.

Over the full 2025-2026 fiscal year, which ended this June, Pakistan paid $203.8m for Indian imports, 7.6 percent less than the previous year.

Monthly averages suggest payments have largely recovered: $19.3m in the 12 months before the conflict and $19.1m in the 13 months from September 2025.

Government trade data, which break down imports by commodity, put the value of imports in the latest quarter slightly lower at $62.6m, compared with $66.6m a year earlier.

What does Pakistan import from India?

Organic chemicals and pharmaceutical products accounted for 96.2 percent of imports from India in 2025-2026, compared with 93 percent the previous year, government trade data show.

The largest category was vaccines, blood products and similar items worth $93.6m, up from $70.3m. Within this group, imports of vaccines for human use rose to $32.3m from $11.1m.

Khaqan Najeeb, a former adviser to Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance, said the reliance was driven by price and supply.

“India has developed a competitive pharmaceutical industry, particularly in active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), which are essential for medicine manufacturing,” he told Al Jazeera. “Pakistan’s pharmaceutical industry has historically sourced some of these inputs from India because of competitive prices, product availability and geographical proximity.”

How does trade continue during the ban?

Pakistan’s restrictions on Indian goods predate the 2025 conflict.

On August 9, 2019, days after India revoked the special autonomous status of India-administered Kashmir, Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce banned the import of goods originating in India or shipped from the country.

Less than a month later, however, it exempted therapeutic products regulated by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP).

After the 2025 Pahalgam attack and India’s decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC) imposed further restrictions.

“All trade with India including to and from any third country through Pakistan is suspended forthwith,” the NSC said in a statement on April 24, 2025.

But Muhammad Zubair Motiwala, a former chief executive of the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP), a government body responsible for facilitating the country’s international trade and exports, said some Indian goods still entered Pakistan through third countries.

“Indian goods actually come through Dubai and Malaysia and others, but they are counted by country of origin,” he told Al Jazeera.

Najeeb, however, cautioned against drawing conclusions about the routes through which such goods reach Pakistan.

“Some supplies may reach Pakistan through international supply chains, but the precise routes and volumes are not publicly established,” he said.

A DRAP official speaking on condition of anonymity said that ultimately, despite the tensions with India, Pakistan’s trade decisions were determined by one factor above all: It would import from India if needed in the national interest.

Could Pakistan buy elsewhere?

Nowhere is that interest clearer than in the field of pharmaceuticals.

Overall, India accounted for only about 0.3 percent of Pakistan’s $64.5bn total import bill in 2025-2026, according to SBP data. Pakistan paid $19.5bn for imports from China, its biggest trading partner.

But the pharma sector is a different story. In 2024 before the four-day war, India was Pakistan’s second-largest supplier of pharmaceuticals, marginally behind Belgium, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Motiwala said replacing Indian suppliers could significantly increase costs for some businesses.

“We actually want this [trade] to reopen. Our raw material comes from them, and it comes from other places. It adds 40 to 50 percent to the cost if we import from other places,” he said.

Najeeb said the impact of switching suppliers would vary depending on the product.

“Freight, insurance, quality certification, regulatory approvals and delivery reliability all influence the economics. Alternative sourcing may increase costs for some products although this will vary across ingredients,” he said.

Are there signs of a thaw?

Motiwala said relations between the neighbours appeared to be easing.

“I do think the ice is melting. It seems like it. Fishermen were recently released, and there was a handshake between the two teams,” he said.

On August 29, India repatriated 25 Pakistani nationals, including fishermen, through the Wagah-Attari border crossing.

Last week, Indian and Pakistani footballers shook hands before and after India’s 3-2 win in a SAFF Championship match in Dhaka, a departure from the recent practice of teams from the two countries avoiding such gestures in other sports.

Najeeb said closer economic ties could benefit both countries.

“However, economic considerations cannot be divorced from the prevailing political and security environment. Where conditions permit, a gradual and mutually agreed resumption of trade could be examined, beginning with areas of clear economic and humanitarian benefit,” he said.

In late August, United States President Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause on certain beef tariffs, making beef cheaper to import, particularly from Brazil.

That decision was framed as a way to bring down prices for consumers, but it landed as a betrayal for many US ranchers, who were getting ready to take their cattle to market.

It is too soon to tell how the decision will ultimately affect grocery prices, but the impact on ranchers was immediate: prices at cattle auctions plummeted, temporarily lowering ranchers’ profits. The United States Cattlemen’s Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Farm Bureau, all member organisations that represent ranchers, opposed the decision.

Rural Republican members of Congress also distanced themselves, but it is not yet clear how ranchers will vote in the midterms — or whether those votes will decide races.

Chad Basinger, a rancher in Pretty Prairie, Kansas, is sceptical that the imports will have a significant impact.

“I know there’s people that have said, ‘Well I’m just gonna vote for the other party’ or ‘I’m not gonna vote’ or ‘This administration’s really let me down’. So yes, there will be people that swing the other way in the midterms. But overall I don’t think it’ll be that much,” Basinger said.

Ranchers will also be weighing the administration’s other actions, Basinger said, such as the $8bn in farm relief announced in Kansas on October 19.

Basinger’s House of Representatives district in Kansas is expected to remain safely Republican in the midterms. But Kansas faces an unexpectedly tight Senate race and ranchers in House districts elsewhere may find themselves closer to the political fray: potential swing districts in Montana, Iowa, Texas and Colorado are all in cattle country.

Still, it is unlikely that ranchers alone will decide elections: ranchers — along with farmers more broadly — represent a shrinking percentage of rural voters and a smaller voting bloc in practice than in the public imagination.

America’s cattle herd is near its smallest size since 1951 and the number of ranchers has declined alongside the number of livestock. Observers worry that ongoing uncertainty fuelled by tariffs, fuel prices and drought may cause the ranching population to shrink further.

David Anderson, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University who advises ranchers, said that high prices this year should have given ranchers the confidence to invest in the future and expand their herds. Making imports cheaper, however, may have helped nudge ranchers in the opposite direction.

“It really works against the market signal to expand and produce more domestically,” Anderson said. “That got a lot of people pretty angry.”

Tariff changes add volatility

This is not the first time that Trump’s tariffs have impacted cattle supplies. Last year, the president added a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, a key trade partner for beef, raising the cost of importing Brazilian lean beef, which is often mixed with fatty US beef to make hamburger patties, a staple in most homes.

In February, Trump allowed more tariff-free beef imports from Argentina. In August, he did the same for Brazil and Paraguay.

Both tariff changes led to swift price swings in cattle futures markets, which are often volatile in response to the news cycle.

Cattle prices also moved this year in response to more fundamental drivers of supply and demand: plant closures by meatpackers, labour shortages late last month related to ICE actions at Kansas packing plants, the second-largest in the country, and the reopening of the southern border after a closure due to New World screwworm disease.

Big picture, the shrinking US cattle herd has less to do with short-term price changes and more to do with drought cycles, which are growing more intense as warming temperatures increase evaporation.

Still, tariff changes add uncertainty. “This has been a hot topic for the last six weeks,” said Anderson. “It just adds a little more uncertainty or volatility — or worries or stress.”

This year, extra price volatility as many ranchers prepared to sell meant ranchers faced lower profits and more risk.

Basinger says that for many established ranchers, the tariff announcement was frustrating, but not existential.

“People are upset. They have a right to be upset. But they’re not going to change their strategy,” he said. For most ranchers, Basinger said, the imports would not be the biggest factor shaping decisions about their herds this year.

Where price volatility may matter more, Basinger said, is for the next generation. Most of today’s ranchers are eyeing retirement. Their heirs must decide whether to make a go of ranching or sell their family’s land. Other aspiring ranchers are also watching the industry.

“If you’re seeing your dad not make money, or somebody else not make money…it’s not easy work!” Basinger said. “It has to be very enticing for somebody to want to jump in and be like, ‘I’m gonna be a rancher and go break ice in the middle of winter when it’s cold and I could be inside’.”

Record revenue and record costs

This year, low US cattle supplies meant that ranchers commanded record-high cattle prices, despite added imports and other market shifts.

But high revenue doesn’t always mean huge profits: Many ranchers operate at a loss for years in a row. Then, they rely on a few good years to pay down debts or expand their herds.

This year, profits were lower than hoped, because ranchers also faced high costs.

Interest rates on loans are high and the war with Iran meant ranchers paid extra for fuel and fertiliser. A drought across much of America’s ranchland meant they paid more for feed.

In states such as Kansas and Nebraska, ranchers also faced destructive wildfires and aid groups like Farm Rescue coordinated hay donations.

Still, Basinger said, ranchers who raise cows and calves generally did well this year. In Kansas, he is seeing ranchers use profits to make repairs and upgrades. He said this year’s high cattle prices have been helping. “But it needs to help for a little longer to give them more of an edge,” he said.

More of an edge might mean, for example, enough money for bigger purchases, like buying land from a neighbouring ranch to make room for a growing herd.

Rangeland, however, is increasingly expensive. When it is up for sale, outside investors can often pay more than ranchers, which can mean less land for cattle. That’s just one more pressure shrinking the US herd decade after decade.

Ranchers had hoped that 2026 would be a turnaround year. So far, however, “we really don’t have much evidence of herd expansion,” Anderson said.