Former finance minister Miftah Ismail has challenged Federal Information Minister Attaullah Tarar’s defence of the government’s sugar policy, arguing that several key questions about the cost of imports, domestic prices and the current re-export of sugar remain unanswered.

The dispute began after Tarar accused Ismail of distorting facts and misleading the public. Tarar said sugar was exported in 2024 because Pakistan had surplus stocks, while imports were made last year after lower sugarcane production to protect consumers and keep prices balanced.

Tarar also said around 100,000 tonnes of sugar imported last year is now being re-exported because market conditions are stable, with no adverse impact on consumers or growers. He further highlighted an additional Rs. 60 billion collected from the sugar industry through FBR enforcement.

Ismail, however, said Tarar did not identify a single incorrect fact in his earlier statement and instead left out what he considers the most important parts of the story.

He argued that the decision to allow sugar exports pushed the local price up by around Rs. 50 per kg. He then questioned why the government opted to import sugar through the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP), rather than leave the process to private importers.

According to Ismail, TCP bought sugar at prices above the prevailing international market rate. He further claimed that TCP was unable to dispose of all the imported stock and is now re-exporting it at a lower price.

That, he said, means Pakistan is taking a foreign-exchange loss after importing sugar at a higher cost.

This is the central issue Tarar’s response does not fully address: if the sugar is now being sold abroad for less than what was paid for it, what was the total cost of the decision to import it in the first place?

Ismail also responded to Tarar’s reference to the Rs. 60 billion increase in tax collection. He said higher sugar prices automatically generate more sales tax because of the 18% rate on sugar. A Rs. 50 per kg increase, for example, translates into Rs. 9 more sales tax per kilogram.

He also pointed to the excise tax imposed on the sugar-consuming industry and FBR’s Track and Trace system as factors behind stronger tax collection.

The argument, therefore, is not whether FBR collected more money. It is whether higher tax collection can be presented as evidence that the overall sugar policy benefited the public.

The government’s case rests on the sequence being commercially necessary: surplus justified exports, a weaker crop justified imports and stable conditions now justify re-exporting the remaining stock.

Ismail’s case is different. He is questioning the economics between those decisions — particularly the domestic price increase, TCP’s purchase price and the loss that could arise from selling the imported sugar abroad at a lower price.

The government could settle the matter by publishing the relevant numbers: TCP’s purchase price, the international benchmark at the time of purchase, domestic selling prices and the price at which the sugar is now being re-exported.

There was also a clear difference in tone between the two responses.

Tarar addressed Ismail as “Mr Ismail” while accusing him of distorting facts. Ismail noted that Tarar previously called him “Miftah bhai” and said political disagreements should not come at the expense of basic grace.

He also named Ahsan Iqbal, Awais Leghari, Ali Pervaiz Malik and Musadik Malik as politicians who, in his view, continue to argue with grace despite differences.

An important point for readers: this analyst can personally attest to the grace and professionalism of the four public figures Miftah named. Their official decisions and policy choices, of course, are a separate matter — one that deserves a personal response rather than commentary in this forum.

For now, the political argument is clear, but the economic question remains more important: did Pakistan protect consumers and public finances through its sugar policy, or did it end up buying sugar at a high price and selling part of it abroad for less?