|
Round The World
New Delhi, 11 December 2020
India &
Neighbours
WHAT
FUTURE SAARC!
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
(Prof,
International Relations, JIMMC)
On 36th
SAARC Charter Day Anniversary, the heads of SAARC countries delivered messages albeit
conflicting ones. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave not-so-veiled
warning, “the full potential of SAARC can only be realised in an atmosphere
free of terror and violence.” He called upon its leaders to “recommit to
defeating the forces that support and nurture terrorism”.
Prime Minister of
Nepal and current SAARC Chairman KPS Oli made an appeal for SAARC process to be
resumed. In his message he said, “SAARC is not a choice but a necessity for
meaningful regional cooperation in South Asia. The longer we will delay, the
more will be the opportunity cost”. He extended his plea by suggesting, “a
fresh impetus to the stalled SAARC process including an early convening of the
summit can rekindle hope among our people and provide ground to move forward.”
Soon after Pakistan Prime
Minister Imran Khan gave his message which was as expected critical of India. He
said, “It is unfortunate that due to long standing unresolved disputes amongst
the member states, SAARC countries have been unable to achieve the desired
socio-economic cooperation and prosperity in the region so far. Artificial
obstacles had been raised against the SAARC process.”
The eight-member
SAARC – South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation was set up 36 years
ago on 8 December 1985 in Dhaka. The idea was mooted in 1980 in the first
meeting of seven founding countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives,
Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – which met in Colombo in April 1981. Afghanistan
became the 8th member at the 13th Annual Summit, 2005. The
major founding principle is the “respect for the principles of sovereign
equality, territorial integrity, political independence, non-interference in
the internal affairs of other States”, with a host of objectives set out in the
SAARC charter.
The SAARC was
hobbling from the beginning. It has been a body of unequal and disparate
members. The size of India as the biggest country compared to smaller ones like
Sri Lanka, Maldives and Nepal cuts both ways. It could be the biggest market
for neighbouring countries, and also be perceived as a bully. Wrongly or
rightly, the latter has been the perception of quite a few countries.
The history of two
other countries being a part of India in the past brings up other traditional
problems. The partition between India and Pakistan has been painful and is
incomplete, and the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan with support from
India is another chapter of history that reminds the people of the
sub-continent of human tragedies of incredible degree. Time has not yet healed
the wounds, which fester often calling for vengeance and retribution.
The socio-religious
configuration in South Asian countries emanating from such a history is unique.
India is a Hindu majority country with a large Muslim population as a minority
along with other smaller religious groups like Christians, Parsis, Bahais, and
Indic religions like Buddhist and Jains. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and
Maldives are Muslim majority countries with other minorities, ‘Hindus’ in
Bangladesh and Pakistan. Nepal is a Hindu majority country with non-sizeable
minorities and Sri Lanka is Buddhist majority State with Tamils, Muslims and
Christians as minority. Such demographic composition should make the countries
socio-religiously inter-dependent. Strangely that’s not the case.
Similar is the
history of conflicts and wars between the members of European Union. There is
also huge difference in size and population. Take for instance Germany which is
now after unification 80 million and Luxemburg is under 2 million. All member
countries in EU, including the six founding members, are matured democracies and
sound economies. The desire for greater economic good in unity and solidarity in
Europe was the driving force behind the creation and growth of EU into one
political entity.
The Détente between
two major European powers France and Germany made EU possible. A similar
development between India and Pakistan could perhaps do the trick for SAARC. Unfortunately,
while India is a democracy, Pakistan has been ruled directly or by proxy by the
military, which has its own logic of survival, based on prolonged conflict with
India not reconciliation.
Unless there is a
change from military hegemony to democratic politics, peace and security
between India and Pakistan is quite unlikely. Efforts have been made largely by
India to build peace, and admittedly, occasionally, depending on the leadership
in Pakistan, Islamabad has responded. But the military, time and again has torpedoed
any attempt at reconciliation with New Delhi. One incident worth recalling was
when Morarji Desai won the hearts of even Pakistan military by offering Indian
military assistance to it. On one occasion, Desai telephoned Zia-ul-Haq,
“General, why do you spend on your military instead of putting the scarce
resources into development. If your country is under attack, I will put my
military behind yours”. No wonder, Morarji was honoured with Pakistan’s highest
civilian award.
Similarly, I.K.
Gujral had invented a doctrine for peace and security in South Asia known as
Gujral Doctrine. It comprised five principles to guide conduct of foreign
relations with India’s immediate neighbours, mainly Pakistan. It recognised the
supreme importance of friendly, cordial relations with neighbours. Secondly,
India’s stature and strength cannot be isolated from the quality of its
relations with neighbours. The most important principle was that with
neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, India does
not ask for reciprocity, gives and accommodates what it can in good faith and
trust.
Former Prime Minister
Atal Behari Vajpayee belonging to BJP, which is perceived to be anti-Muslim and
so anti-Pakistan, had famously said, “You can change your friends, but you
cannot change your neighbours”. The statement was made in reference to
traditional tensions between India and Pakistan. Vajpayee was apparently
legitimising his attempts at restoration of relations with Pakistan and genuinely,
like his predecessors, endeavouring to normalise these. His famous bus trip to
Lahore as a symbol of rebuilding friendship was received warmly in Islamabad raising
hope for peace. But the military as said before wanted to scupper it and sent
mercenaries to Kargil. Rest is history.
Even Modi began well
by inviting the heads of SAARC nations to his first swearing-in ceremony as Prime
Minister. He went to Lahore on social visits to show warmth and friendship. But
sadly, Islamabad did not reciprocate and things have gotten worse. Pakistan-sponsored
terrorism continues unabated. There is no scope for dialogue. India maintains
dialogue and deaths by terrorists’ bullets cannot go together. Pakistan while
conniving with China to foment trouble in India wants to have dialogue with New
Delhi. It is fast learning the Chinese art of duplicity.
That has been the SAARC
story, stalled by a recalcitrant Pakistan hopelessly under military grip,
thriving on terrorism and drugs, playing a side kick as a satellite country of
China, denying democratic space and even human rights to its population let
alone the Baluchs. Unless SAARC countries put pressure-- moral or otherwise on
Pakistan, SAARC is a no-go. Rest of SAARC countries are democracies, not under
military rule except Pakistan. Yes, there is a Prime Minister in Pakistan but
controlled by whom, the Constitution or Commanders in the military. The crux of
revival of SAARC is a genuine democracy in Pakistan refusing to play Chinese
game in South Asia politics. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
