|
Regional Cooperation In South Asia:
The Effect of Religious Bigotry and Communal Polarization in Politics
on Economic Cooperation and Development
Ambassador Tariq Karim
Congressman Sherrod Brown, Distinguished Fellow Panelists, Ladies and Gentlemen
First of all I wish to congratulate the Policy Institute for Religion and the State, and its Executive Director Mr. P.D. John for organizing this symposium on South Asia.
It is entirely appropriate that a
symposium of this nature, organized by Americans of South Asian origin should today be held in the premises of Capitol Hill.
South Asia has at long last come into the American view, out of the blind spot of their rear view mirror where it had remained hidden and out of sight for far too long.
I thank Mr. P. D. John for inviting
me to be a panelist and for allowing me to share with you some of my thoughts on the subject of “Regional Cooperation in South Asia: Prospects, and Challenges posed by Religious bigotry and polarization of communal
radicalism”. I am honored to be here this afternoon to participate in this very timely symposium, focusing attention on religious intolerance and bigotry and the dangers they pose to peace and development in
South Asia.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Religious bigotry of any kind, occurring in any religion, anywhere in the world, is abhorrent and an insult to the religion in whose name it is practiced
and perpetrated. None of the great faiths of this world, whether Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or any other faith teaches cruelty and unkindness to other people and intolerance to other
faiths. When people of one faith target people of another faith, they do, in my view, indulge in an organized form of terrorism. About ten months ago, in my previous incarnation here, in an address I
had made to the Bangladeshi community I had said the following:
“The dastardly terrorist attacks on September 11, on the twin towers of the WTC and on the Pentagon, were not just an assault on America and
Americans.
They were heinous attacks on the entire world as well, including on Bangladesh because innocent Bangladeshis, as also citizens from many other countries, were also among the casualties…indeed, they were an attack on humanity. As a result of those attacks we all stand diminished, not only because of the colossal loss of innocent human lives, but also because they denigrate the core spirit and essential values of Islam in whose name these criminal acts were perpetrated.... Terrorism is terrorism.....period. It recognizes no caste, creed, religion, race, ethnicity, or physical and political boundaries. It stalks a global theatre, and its specter will haunt us everywhere, unless we stand up against it, united, and address the malaise from its roots.”
Mr. Chairman, Friends,
Please allow me to quote a few verses from the Bhagvad Gita and the Quran, which would demonstrate the universality of the Divine Message, as revealed to different peoples,
across distant lands, over different times.
The Lord in the final chapter of the Bhagvad Gita reveals as follows to Arjuna:
“The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing
the wanderings of all living entities... (18:61)
“ Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me.
Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are my friend. (18:65)
“Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender to Me.
I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.” (18:66)
Allah, in the Quran, enjoined upon the Prophet Muhammad to declare to his followers:
“Say ye: We believe
In God, and the revelation
Given to us, and to Abraham,
Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob,
And the tribes, and that given
To Moses and Jesus, and that given
To all Prophets from their Lord:
We make no difference
Between one and another of them;
And we bow to God (in Islam)”. ( S 2- 136)
It is
important to note here that in the Islamic tradition, God sent at least 140,000 prophets carrying His Eternal Message to man. All these prophets are not listed by name; but God, unambiguously asserts in the
Quran that none of His revelations sent earlier through any of His earlier prophets does He abrogate or set aside; He merely replaces it with something better or similar.
The Quran explicitly condemns any form of self-righteousness on the part of any one:
“Those who believe (in the Quran)
And those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures)
And the Christians and the Sabians, --
And who believe in God,
And the Last Day,
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With their Lord: on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. (Surah 2—Al Baqarah; v 62)
I could quote similar injunctions from the other scriptures too, but because
of the limitations of time shall refrain from doing so. What pains me is that so many atrocities, essentially crimes against humanity, are carried out by people of one faith against people of another faith;
whereas in actuality, ironically, all paths lead to the same destination. All faiths essentially carry the same Universal message, of peace, kindness, love, charity, doing good, seeking knowledge, submitting
to the Divine Will. Then why do people fight each other in their self-righteousness? The problem arises essentially when religion is abused for the projection of political power, thus sullying the very
Faith it purports to draw upon for sanctioning its misdirected deeds.
Mr. Chairman,
South Asia is home to almost one and half billion people -- one fifths of the world’s entire population. It is
also home to several great faiths. It is not without resources, yet sadly the world appears to have left it behind, while South Asians continue bickering and fighting amongst themselves, each more and more
fanatically persuaded in his own righteousness.
While we South Asians are always quick to point fingers at others, the truth is that we are, ourselves, largely responsible for our own plights, but are loathe to do any soul searching on our part. We are our own biggest enemies.
It was in the late seventies that President Ziaur Rahman of Bangladesh first formally floated the idea of regional cooperation among the South Asian countries. The idea drew inspiration not a
little from the model of cooperation embarked upon by what was then known as the European Economic Community, and by the ASEAN to our east. Ironically, when Bangladesh first proposed this idea to India, we
were viewed with deep suspicion as a stalking horse for Pakistan; similarly, the Pakistanis received the proposal with a mirror image of the Indian reaction.
However, Bangladesh persevered patiently, and SAARC was finally officially launched in December 1985, in Dhaka. The seven Heads of State or Government, in the Dhaka Declaration, affixing their signatures to the SAARC Charter, considered this event as a tangible manifestation of their determination to cooperate regionally, and to work together to finding solutions to their common problems in a spirit of friendship, trust and mutual understanding. They expressed their commitment to the creation of an order based on mutual respect, equality and shared benefits. The Leaders also expressed their hope that their new regional organization would accelerate the pace of development of their countries, promote individual and collective reliance and further the cause of peace, stability and progress in South Asia and the world.
When the SAARC was established, the leaders were all acutely conscious of the considerable asymmetry among the nations of the region, and of the mistrust and discord that had bedeviled their relations for so
long among them. With over one billion people, the SAARC countries comprise over 20% of the world's total population, but occupy only 2.7% of the total land area and account for less than 2% of the world's
total GNP. Among themselves, the SAARC States differ significantly from each other in terms of population, size, resources and national income. India alone accounts for more than 76% of its population, 73 % of
its area, and around 80% of its GNP.
At the other end of the spectrum, Maldives' share of land and population are only 0.02%. Between these two poles, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka can be illustratively described as small economies, Bangladesh and Pakistan as medium-sized economies and India as the giant-sized economy of the region. It was this sheer disproportion in the scale of the economies, between India and the rest, which inhibited any significant growth of trade and commerce within the region. At the time of its formation, intra-regional trade in South Asia was so small as to be almost negligible, accounting for only 3% of the region's global trade.
With the implementation of SAPTA (acronym for the South Asian Preferential Trade Arrangement), signed by the member countries in 1993 but ratified only on December 8, 1995, the basket of tradable commodities
enlarged with tariff cuts, accruing trade benefits in varying degrees for all countries. Through SAPTA, the seven South Asian countries endeavored to increase intra-regional trade, by reducing tariff, para-tariff
and non-tariff barriers, and promoting direct trading measures such as "long and medium contracts containing import and supply commitments in respect of specific products, buy-back arrangements, state trading
operations and government and public procurement" (Art. 5 of SAPTA). But intra-regional trade still remained far below expectations.
Since its inception, SAPTA has had two further enhancements in the
basket of commodities within its arrangement, and the Leaders of the seven countries, at their last summit in January this year in Kathmandu, once again reiterated their commitment to striving towards their ultimate
goal of what is known as SAFTA, or South Asian Free Trade Area.
SAFTA was originally targeted for 2005; but at the SAARC Summit in 1997, the SAARC Heads of Governments ambitiously brought it forward to 2001. It is noteworthy that this optimism, and unprecedented ‘bonhomie’ among the leadership of the region coincided with a brief interlude when all the leaders represented practicing democracies in the region. In 1997, Bangladesh hosted the first ever South Asian Business Summit, which brought together the Heads of Governments of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh along with the Heads of their respective Business Chambers, to chalk out an ambitious blue print for economic and trade cooperation. In the subsequent SAARC summit in Colombo, the then Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina even boldly called for the formation of a SAARC Union as a goal for the seven nations. This was heady stuff indeed. Alas, the events in India & Pakistan in 1998 and 1999 and the sharp deterioration in relations between the two biggest South Asian powers proved a huge setback, delivering severe body blows to the process. Meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan practically ceased, and the scheduled annual SAARC summit meetings were postponed as a result. When the leaders (or more appropriately, the leaders of India and Pakistan) finally agreed to meet again in January 2002 in Nepal, the SAFTA target was pushed back to 2005, but even that, at this point of time now, appears overly optimistic. It seems that any further progress in SAARC is now indefinitely hostage to a resolution of the India-Pakistan confrontation.
Mr.Chairman,
SAARC did, and perhaps still does, serve a very useful role.
First it helped to develop over the years an epistemic network of professionals in various fields, ranging from agriculture to meteorology, exchanging information and cooperating quietly in their respective fields. It also offered the leaders with a gazebo to come under and meet at regular and periodic intervals, providing an occasion for them to meet informally at the retreat outside the formality of the Conference Hall and quietly address issues bothering them (although, during the last few years, these summit meetings appear to have acquired menopausal irregularity). Since the mid-nineties, when SAARC activities finally embraced the core sectors of economy and trade, it has also increasingly brought about significant interaction among the SAARC business communities, who started rediscovering the potentials of their own regional market. If there was any advancement in the political agenda of SAARC (formally, the Charter still precludes it from having any) it was because of the pressures from the business sectors in its member states. But this was again hostage to the state of the political relations between the neighboring countries. Progress in regional cooperation, at best, has been in fits and starts, and is far below the vast potentials that still lie unexplored and unexploited. The truth is: the engine of trade and economic cooperation can run forward easily only if the political spark plugs fire smoothly, and concertedly...their misfiring WILL cause the engine to lurch to a halt.
In my view, one of the biggest weaknesses in the SAARC arrangement is that people-to-people contacts are still very limited, and remain hostage to the vice-like grip of what I would describe as the “security
syndrome” that often transgresses paranoia. Unlike in the EU or even ASEAN, where people can move freely between different countries of the region, for the ordinary person of one country in South Asia to get
a visit visa for another is probably one of the most painful and traumatic experiences of his or her life (even officials traveling on SAARC business have problems on a lower scale). This security syndrome is
what enables respective governments to feed a lot of hogwash to their captive populations when demonizing “the enemy” (Pakistan is perhaps the bigger culprit in this respect).
Mr. Chairman, distinguished friends
Unfortunately, there appears to be a trend in the regional politics between India and Pakistan becoming increasingly polarized along religious and sectarian lines.
More and more, forces of fundamentalism on both sides of the divide appear to be dictating the agenda of their respective governments, with each side demonizing the other. This process has been perhaps more indulged in by Pakistan on an institutionalized basis since the days of the late, but not greatly lamented President, General Ziaul Huq, while in India it appears to have gained more preponderance with the rise of the BJP as a national party. It appears to me that religious extremism and fanaticism can only flourish if the state allows it to so flourish, by actively or passively sanctioning or condoning it, or acquiescing to it by ignoring it. Certainly, from the examples that we have in South Asia, it would so appear. Unfortunately, the vituperative domestic politics of the countries do have a deleterious and negative effect on the process of regional cooperation. The increasing radicalization of domestic politics along fundamentalist lines, of whatever color or denomination, can only militate further against the process of regional cooperation, to the detriment of peace, economic and social development, and the betterment of the quality of lives of the vast majority of the peoples, an unacceptably large percentage of whom continue to languish below the poverty line.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before ending, I would like to pose two questions here, and also offer my own tentative response to both.
What can the United States do in South Asia?
My response in three words: “Stay proactively engaged”.
The United States happens today to be the most powerful country in the world, in political, military, economic and technological terms. It
may not like the idea of being the Titan Atlas carrying the burden of the world on his shoulders; but in the wake of globalization, today’s Atlas finds himself chained to that globe. He cannot afford to shrug his
shoulders and jettison it. Unlike in the past, the United States now has equally good relations with both countries. That gives it invaluable leverage with both. I am not necessarily talking the
language of mediation here; I am only too painfully aware that it takes three to dance this particular tango, and one of the dancers is, unlike the Dickensian character Barkis, very unwilling. But even if it
does not “mediate”, it can play a very important role in facilitating, and sustaining, a continuing and hopefully meaningful dialogue, between India and Pakistan.
On the economic front, the United States
needs to be more proactively involved in encouraging, and nudging forward, the regional cooperation process.
US businesses should try and think out of the box, of forging partnerships that go beyond bilateral parameters with their South Asian counterparts. This will give a fillip to the respective business sectors in the region striving harder to transform political confrontation to cooperation. It is conceivable that at some point of time, sooner rather than later in the near future, Afghanistan can also be included as a member of the SAARC.
What can the South Asian diaspora do?
The South Asian diaspora constitute a potential force for bringing a lot of influence to bear upon the respective leaderships of their old countries.
All these countries depend substantially upon the foreign exchange remittances augmenting their respective foreign currency reserve accounts. This money is power, but at present only latent power not yet realized or exercised. One would hope that the greater majority of the South Asian diaspora in the United States will by now have shed the baggage that they brought with them from their respective countries, and reflect now a broader and more pragmatic world vision. The leadership of the numerous South Asian community organizations should embark on an extensive and meaningful networking exercise, and where they have US sponsors, those sponsors should make their sponsorships conditional to this pre-requisite.
Similarly, on the economic front, entrepreneurs among the diaspora should consider networking and investing jointly, perhaps with US partners, in regional projects.
One area with vast potentials is the harnessing and exploitation of renewable sources of energy.
At the risk of appearing paranoid, let me assert that should the two major South Asian antagonists, both
nuclear powers now, continue on their present path of collision and, wittingly or unwittingly, embrace Armageddon, the fall-out will be of cataclysmic proportions, for the peoples of their countries, their adjoining
regions, and indeed the world at large.
Allow me to conclude by recalling John Donne’s words here, adapted to today’s circumstances:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is
a piece
of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be
washed away by
the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a
promontory were, as
well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own
were; ......
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls...”
In today’s globalized world, it will toll for us, all.
I thank you all for your patient hearing.
BIOGRAPHY:
Ambassador (Ret) Ahmad Tariq Karim, career Bangladesh diplomat and former
Ambassador to the United States, brings with him rich and varied experience from a distinguished career spanning over three decades. Ambassador Karim has held numerous key assignments at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Bangladesh and in Bangladesh Missions abroad. After Bangladesh’s independence, in the very early stages of the new country’s nascent Foreign Ministry, he played important roles in organizing the personnel
and administration departments of the Ministry, and subsequently the newly-established department for Middle East and African Affairs.
Ambassador Karim, later as Additional Foreign Secretary with responsibility
for the South Asian region, played a seminal role in helping the then newly-elected Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina formulate strategy for normalization of relations with India; including the ending of cross border
insurgency problems that had plagued relations between the two countries for over two decades.
Ambassador Karim is currently a political analyst and independent consultant.
|
