The Saarc (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit will be over by the time these lines appear in print. But we can say that it was another attempt to scale the mountain of difficulties.
The 15th people’s Saarc meeting was held in Delhi recently to impress upon the participants of the official Saarc summit in Thimpu, Bhutan, that South Asian countries will continue to lag behind in development until they realise the meaning of cooperation.
Representatives of human rights bodies, trade unions, women groups and others from the Saarc countries — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, the Maldives and Sri Lanka — demanded a union of South Asian countries in the manner of the European Union, while retaining their individual identity and sovereignty. Some even saw the prospects of one market, one visa and one currency. The representatives (60 from Pakistan alone) “reaffirmed the South Asian people’s commitment to creating a South Asia free from all discrimination, exclusion and domination”.
Indeed, these are lofty ideals that are worth pursuing. The participants were not only passionate about them, they were also committed to rising above nationalism and parochialism to make the dream of a South Asia Union come true. Their speeches had no rancour, no bitterness and no allegation.
All the eight countries are different in their own way. Yet many of them were ruled by foreigners which has cast their outlook in a civilisational mould, reflecting their commonality. Unfortunately, they a seek solution to their basic problems, not from within the region but from outside.
This dependence is the fallout of their slavery. The British who ruled practically the entire region were ruthless masters. They used people in the region as brick and mortar to build the structure of their empire. Any big or odd stone that did not fit in was crushed or thrown aside. Not many rose to challenge the system. The efforts of the few who did were nipped in the bud. Others were eliminated.
Still this region, with its people of different traditions, defeated the British. In their journey towards independence, they fell and rose but reached their destination. It is a saga of suffering and sacrifice which is recalled even today.
South Asia has learned the lesson that every enslaved country does from humiliation. But what it has not learnt yet is that people have to make a joint effort to overcome problems. Together they can fight to determine the path they should take, the tactics they should adopt and the allies they should seek. All this demands an understanding that they are together. This cannot be assumed. A method has to be devised to ascertain their opinion, yes or no.
What do the people think? What do the participants in the struggle for the betterment of conditions feel? Their efforts sow the seed of accountability. If some are to be made answerable, they should have the powers to act. Who should such people be? How can they be spotted? Centuries ago, the English established themselves as the world’s supreme nation against rival claimants. Since then the idea of popular sovereignty has become an integral part of civilised governments. Some nations like France learned from England’s example.
We in South Asia are a watchful people. We were determined to throw out the yoke of foreign rule. We also wanted to devise a system to rule ourselves. Our experience was all that the British taught us — the different acts under which carefully selected people would come to the assemblies and parliaments to rule. Very few came directly elected by the people. That was our democratic system. Our struggle in different parts of the region was to have more and more elected representatives.
We shed each other’s blood, although we were independent. The subcontinent of India was partitioned into India and Pakistan on the basis of religion. When the constitution in the newly independent countries was framed, the people’s say was naturally the most.
The biggest achievement of the constitution was to keep the rights of the people supreme and to ensure that the nations did not substitute white masters with brown sahibs.
It was not a question of government alone. It was also a question of the constitutional guarantee whereby sovereignty stayed with the people. And does democracy mean only going to polling booths and registering votes? The answer to such questions may be able to tell whether democracy will survive in South Asia.
The people’s wishes — and prayers — would have yielded some results by this time had the hostility between India and Pakistan been overcome. Neither India nor Pakistan has been able to overcome the differences which go back a long way. In a way, it is the same old bias between Hindus and Muslims. Parochialism spoils the thinking of secular India when it comes to Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan has never adopted secularism even after Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s declaration that the state would have nothing to do with religion.
Between August 1947 and 2010, the two countries have engaged in three wars, apart from militaristic stances over the Rann of Kutch, Siachen and Kargil. Both are also nuclear powers. Still they love to hate each other. Kashmir and water are symptoms, not the disease.
The disease is the bias, suspicion and mistrust which appear in one form or the other. Even if one issue was to be solved, another would rear its ugly head because of the fundamental Hindu-Muslim divide. How do the two nations get away from this posture? The sooner we find an answer to this question, the stronger will be Saarc.
The writer is a senior journalist based in New Delhi.The Saarc (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit will be over by the time these lines appear in print. But we can say that it was another attempt to scale the mountain of difficulties.
The 15th people’s Saarc meeting was held in Delhi recently to impress upon the participants of the official Saarc summit in Thimpu, Bhutan, that South Asian countries will continue to lag behind in development until they realise the meaning of cooperation.
Representatives of human rights bodies, trade unions, women groups and others from the Saarc countries — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, the Maldives and Sri Lanka — demanded a union of South Asian countries in the manner of the European Union, while retaining their individual identity and sovereignty. Some even saw the prospects of one market, one visa and one currency. The representatives (60 from Pakistan alone) “reaffirmed the South Asian people’s commitment to creating a South Asia free from all discrimination, exclusion and domination”.
Indeed, these are lofty ideals that are worth pursuing. The participants were not only passionate about them, they were also committed to rising above nationalism and parochialism to make the dream of a South Asia Union come true. Their speeches had no rancour, no bitterness and no allegation.
All the eight countries are different in their own way. Yet many of them were ruled by foreigners which has cast their outlook in a civilisational mould, reflecting their commonality. Unfortunately, they a seek solution to their basic problems, not from within the region but from outside.
This dependence is the fallout of their slavery. The British who ruled practically the entire region were ruthless masters. They used people in the region as brick and mortar to build the structure of their empire. Any big or odd stone that did not fit in was crushed or thrown aside. Not many rose to challenge the system. The efforts of the few who did were nipped in the bud. Others were eliminated.
Still this region, with its people of different traditions, defeated the British. In their journey towards independence, they fell and rose but reached their destination. It is a saga of suffering and sacrifice which is recalled even today.
South Asia has learned the lesson that every enslaved country does from humiliation. But what it has not learnt yet is that people have to make a joint effort to overcome problems. Together they can fight to determine the path they should take, the tactics they should adopt and the allies they should seek. All this demands an understanding that they are together. This cannot be assumed. A method has to be devised to ascertain their opinion, yes or no.
What do the people think? What do the participants in the struggle for the betterment of conditions feel? Their efforts sow the seed of accountability. If some are to be made answerable, they should have the powers to act. Who should such people be? How can they be spotted? Centuries ago, the English established themselves as the world’s supreme nation against rival claimants. Since then the idea of popular sovereignty has become an integral part of civilised governments. Some nations like France learned from England’s example.
We in South Asia are a watchful people. We were determined to throw out the yoke of foreign rule. We also wanted to devise a system to rule ourselves. Our experience was all that the British taught us — the different acts under which carefully selected people would come to the assemblies and parliaments to rule. Very few came directly elected by the people. That was our democratic system. Our struggle in different parts of the region was to have more and more elected representatives.
We shed each other’s blood, although we were independent. The subcontinent of India was partitioned into India and Pakistan on the basis of religion. When the constitution in the newly independent countries was framed, the people’s say was naturally the most.
The biggest achievement of the constitution was to keep the rights of the people supreme and to ensure that the nations did not substitute white masters with brown sahibs.
It was not a question of government alone. It was also a question of the constitutional guarantee whereby sovereignty stayed with the people. And does democracy mean only going to polling booths and registering votes? The answer to such questions may be able to tell whether democracy will survive in South Asia.
The people’s wishes — and prayers — would have yielded some results by this time had the hostility between India and Pakistan been overcome. Neither India nor Pakistan has been able to overcome the differences which go back a long way. In a way, it is the same old bias between Hindus and Muslims. Parochialism spoils the thinking of secular India when it comes to Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan has never adopted secularism even after Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s declaration that the state would have nothing to do with religion.
Between August 1947 and 2010, the two countries have engaged in three wars, apart from militaristic stances over the Rann of Kutch, Siachen and Kargil. Both are also nuclear powers. Still they love to hate each other. Kashmir and water are symptoms, not the disease.
The disease is the bias, suspicion and mistrust which appear in one form or the other. Even if one issue was to be solved, another would rear its ugly head because of the fundamental Hindu-Muslim divide. How do the two nations get away from this posture? The sooner we find an answer to this question, the stronger will be Saarc.
The writer is a senior journalist based in New Delhi.
No comments:
Post a Comment