Imagine a New SouthAsia!

John Samuel


Imagine a New South Asia- where borders will be transformed in to bridges and bonding; where all children will go to school, where no one will go to bed hungry; where the human rights of minorities will be respected; where there will be more prosperity and peace, rather than war and violence; where people can rise above the narrow walls and interest to share a common destiny of the peoples’ of South Asia-one the biggest resources of people, culture and civilzational space in the world.

Let us imagine a new South Asia- that can transform itself and the world. Let us imagine with passion and conviction about the immense possibilities of a South Asia driven by prosperity, peace, democracy and mutual trust; a South Asia, where the autonomy and sovereignty of each country will be respected and at the same time we together seek to mould common futures based on shared commitment, interest , culture and a passion to transform our challenges in to opportunities, our poverty in to prosperity and our deeply entrenched mistrusts in to a sense of trust and mutual respect.

Many skeptics may say that it is a romantic dream- devoid of any sense of reality. However, dreams can be the beginning of a new dawn. In a growing climate of cynicism, young people should not lose the ability to dream about a New South Asia. Dreams can dare to challenge the constraints of past and present. We need to dream about a new South Asia- we need new dreams to heal the wounds that haunt us; we need a new dream that can transform our agonies and mistrust. My generation does not have to be the prisoners of the past. We can indeed be the shapers and makers of future- as shared sense of future of a New South Asia, with a new sense of political and poetical imagination. We need to rediscover a new poetry and politics in this primordial melting pot of cultures, languages, civilizations and human history.

The old South Asia is the balance sheet of the power equations that emerged out the rather the brutal process of decolonizing. Now it is time to outgrow from the past baggage of negativity - negatively defining our own different national identities- and of the deep mistrust that got nurtured by the powerful forces and countries of the world. As long as the countries in South Asia are more in to a mode of undermining each other and in to mindless arms race, we all will be dependent more on other powerful countries for aid, arms and arbitration. The issues of poverty, politics of exclusion, communalism, extremist nationalism, discrimination, and environmental crisis in the region are very much interwoven and intermingled. While the neo-liberalization had created a minuscule minority of upward mobile urban upper middle class, the balance sheet of neo-liberal policy prescriptions does not look bright. There is growing inequality, displacement, trafficking, conflicts and violence. The aggressive neo-liberalism not only undermined the small farmers, and small scale agriculture, it has also created a large vulnerable middle class- who have not gained much out of the of the economic globalization. More deprived rural farmers and an increasing number of vulnerable middle class, particularly young among them, fall pray to various kind of religious fundamentalism. The reactionary politics of “negativism’ and religious fundamentalism is often turned against the immediate “other” or the “other” neighboring country. This negative sense of identity and “patriotism’ perpetuates a social psychology of mistrust as well as a tendency to “externalize” the problem and blame it on the immediate neighboring country. It is an easier short-cut for a political class who will rather blame others rather than taking responsibility to address problem or an issue with a positive agenda. It is easier to mobilize the people against a perceived “other” or an “imagined” enemy. Such politics of hate and mistrust tend to mobilize the semi-literate or illiterate masses against another country- or an imagined enemy within or across the border. They transplant their “patriotism’ to a game of cricket or to allegation against “illegal” migrants from across the border. In most of the countries in the region, national identity or “patriotism’ is not defined in terms of positive identification with culture, people and history. Patriotism” is often identified in negative relation to another country in the region. So the “indianess” is defined in negative relation to Pakistan or Bangladesh or the other way around. It is important to develop a sense of South Asian identity beyond our own sense of imbibed sense of “nationalism”. We need to exorcise the ghosts of the past within our mind and political discourse. We, as South Asians, have much more in common – in terms of language, culture, food, music and tastes- than any set of people in this world. Hence, it is important to find lasting solutions based on mutual cooperation, collaboration and joint efforts to address the issues of inequities, injustice, mistrust and conflicts in the region.

The fact of the matter is that largest number of poor people live in South Asia. We as a region is most vulnerable to natural, social and political disasters. There is whole range of violent politics and range of extremism and terrorism in South Asia. Conflicts over natural resources, identity and inequality are on the rise in South Asia. While most of the governments give lip-service about SAARC, no one seriously invest in making SAARC a viable and effective South Asia forum. Unless we challenge and change this situation, South Asian countries will remain poor, with a growing club of few billionaires. The growing sense of injustice and inequality will perpetuate new conflicts, spiraling defense expenditure and undermine democracy and development across South Asia.


The primary responsibility of challenging and changing the condition to a large extend will depend on the attitude and approach of India to its neighboring countries. India is perceived as a hegemonic and arrogant power by most of the people and governments in South Asia. And there is a deep sense of mutual mistrust and mutual undermining between Pakistan and India. Such a situation makes SAARC as one of the most ineffective regional forums in the world. Transforming this situation demands a transformation of the approach and attitude of the government of India. India, with a growing economy, technology, and a democratic polity, can indeed play a much more enabling and empowering role in South Asia, instead of a hegemonic role and rather aggressive posturing. The first step towards lasting peace in the region is to develop workable and realistic solutions to entrenched conflicts in Kashmir and Sri Lanka, without undermining the sovereignty and integrity of the countries involved in the conflicts. This also means evolving a broader framework for addressing issues of conflicts within countries.

However, the firs step towards such a process should involve developing a set of positive social and cultural agenda that can be owned by all countries of the region. It is important for India and Pakistan to reach a common minimum programme to reduce the conflicts and mistrust. Though there has been significant improvement in the relationship between these two countries, they are not good enough to transform rather depressing situation of the region. Once there is more trust and mutually enabling attitude between these countries divided by a sort of iron curtain, it is indeed possible to develop a clear South Asian agenda and joint programme, with support of Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives, to ensure poverty eradication, universal education, technology transfer and disaster mitigation initiatives. It is also imperative for South Asia to develop a framework for human rights.

While a South Asian Federation may be an idea whose time has come, it is important to work towards creating enabling conditions for such process among the peoples and governments of South Asia. It is important to unleash our positive potential on a set of positive social and political agenda. The first step towards is to create enabling environment for free movement of people, and to begin with provisions for visa on arrival in all countries.

Here are seven possible policy options towards paving the way for a New South Asia:

1) A South Asian People’s Parliament. It is indeed possible to conceive a South Asian people’s parliament where there will be a sense of equal grounding for the big and small countries of the region- where different sections of the people can be represented. This process can evolve over a period of five to ten year, though it is possible to make a modest beginning of South Asian People’s Parliament. One can learn lessons form European Parliament and Africa Union. This parliament can discuss key issues that confront the region and come out with common policy framework and solution on social and economic sectors.
2) A South Asian Education Fund: The key for unleashing the potential of South Asia lies in univeralisation of education and a joint investment in higher education, science and technology. This would enable the emergence of an educated middle class across South Asia. The presence of educated, enlightened and liberal middle class is indeed important for the sustenance and growth of democracy and economic development in the region. India can play a role in initiating this Fund, and also helping to establish Institutions of excellence for science, technology and management in different countries of South Asia.


3) South Asian Climate Change Management and Disaster Mitigation Framework. The issues of climate change and natural disasters in the region will have an impact across the borders. Environmental impacts and natural disasters do not respect any national “borders” and hence there is a need for a joint fund and mechanism to address the causes and consequence of environmental crisis and natural disasters.
4) South Asia Poverty Eradication Programme. Poverty is one of the crucial stumbling blocks for peace and regional cooperation in South Asia. If there is a joint fund, joint framework and joint effort to address issues of poverty through shared policy framework and approach that can indeed bring positive dividends for peace and prosperity in South Asia. As long as our countries have entrenched poverty, inequality and injustice, we will not be able to move towards a vision of peaceful, prosperous and peoples’ South Asia.

5) A South Asian Charter on Human Rights will help to develop a framework to protect the rights of minorities in each of the countries, and also ensure a framework for realizing the Economic, Social and Cultural rights of people.

6) A South Asian Economic Management Framework. This could include a mutually enabling and supporting trade framework, a shard framework for fiscal policy, a possible South Asian currency and a joint framework for supporting economic growth of each country through developing knowledge, technology and an optimal market.

7) A South Asia Charter on Human Right to Food for supporting small agriculture and regional buffer stock of food to address potential food crisis.


The idea and imagination of a New South Asia will have to be discussed and debated among peoples of South Asia. People across South Asia will have to be mobilized for towards a new vision of peaceful, prosperous and peoples South Asia- a South Asia without poverty where every person and community can live with a sense of dignity. It is imperative for India to bring about a paradigm shift in its approach in the region, to transform itself from a hegemonic and arrogant power to an enabling and supporting country that can treat all its neighboring countries as equal in letter and spirit.


It is time to rediscover the dream of Rabindranath Tagore:


WHERE the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake

It is time to rekindle a politics of hope. We need to go beyond the politics of protest and mistrust to a new politics of proposals and politics of transformation. We need to make a new tryst with destiny in South Asia.

The Electoral Implications of the Nuclear Deal: Shining India Vs Bharat

John Samuel



One has to make a distinction between the policy narrative and political discourse that emerge from the potential civil nuclear deal between Indian and the USA. While the nuanced policy narrative is more about the potential energy security and a new legitimation of India by the rich and powerful actors of this rather unilateral world, political discourse will be more about "sovereignty' of India as a country.

Politics is more about perceptions and less about the nuanced policy analysis or its implications. Electoral politics in India is less shaped by the promises about potential long term policy gains, but more about the political discourses and compulsions of today. The political perceptions are often shaped by strategic media spin, powerful images, signs, symbols and pre-emptive rhetoric.

While the policy wonks of the UPA and the foreign policy experts who push for the nuclear deal are much more focused on the policy gains in the international arena and potential energy security in the log run, the Left and BJP are in the process of shaping the political rhetoric and discourse around the "autonomy' and "sovereignty of India as a nation of a billion people.


From the perspective of Electoral positioning, UPA is making a strategic mistake – about the timing and positioning of the Nuclear Deal as a primary electoral issue. Whether Congress party wants it or not, this will end up as a key election issue. The balance sheet of UPA in the last four years got enough achievements to go to the elections with political positioning as a government that is politically committed to the aam admi. The recent food and oil price and the consequent inflation may pose some challenges. However, the UPA and Congress party did not even manage to sell their gains among the people across India. UPA has introduced some of the most progressive legislations and policy initiatives in the recent times: National Rural Employment Guarantee, Right to Information, more investment for Education, a law against Domestic Violence, a law to protect the rights of Forest dwellers over their land and clear steps to support farmers and agriculture. Instead of developing a whole political discourse and electoral strategy that would help to increase the "legitimation" of the UPA with the voting aam admi, Manmohan Sing seems to have taken Nuclear Deal as the last assertion before he vacates the space. It is as if the Nuclear Deal has become a prestige issue for the PM and few foreign policy wonks in the Ministry of External Affairs. While this new assertion of the Prime Minster and few others in the government will give a good grading in the “International Community” and the foreign press from the US and Europe, it may not bring electoral dividends in the forthcoming election. In fact, it may neutralize the potential electoral gains that could have been made of the relatively progressive pro-poor policies of the government. A hug from George Bush may not form the best poster for the next election.


The issue of Nuclear Deal may be perceived different by the ‘shining India" segment and the "Bharat" of the majority of Indians. The problem is that "shining India" brigade of the upward mobile class will read and discuss the English newspaper and indulge in "patriotic" discussions in cocktail parties. But this class hardly goes to cast their votes and can easily shift their allegiances to anyone who is in power. These parasites of power do not care much about the colure of the incumbent ant in the south block. As long as their "shining" interests are taken care of, they are less bothered about a communal riot "here or there" or few suicides of farmers "once in a while". This shining Indian class gets carried away by a "praising piece" in the Newsweek or the Time. The more educated among would feel really great if the Economist says a few good words about the country. Those who are in power in Delhi often get carried away by this ever visible, ever enthusiastic urban upward mobile class of India and their press. When Pramad Mahajan and his company in the NDA government got carried away by the pat of the Shining India, they faced the music in the ballot box.


The largely self-serving shining India class is generally pro-anything that gives them better money, better opportunities, better image and also the "patriotic" shining elsewhere. They are proud of their high flying kids working in the investment banks or the IT sector in Silicon Valley or Transnational Corporations in the richer part of the world. They feel very happy when the few privileged in London, New York or Washington say that India is an emerging “super’ power. They get carried away by the flat world of Thomas Friedman or the list of the Indian billionaires in the Forbes Magazine. They are happy that Bush patted Manmohan Sing in Hokkaido. They also get impressed by the photo opportunities of our PM with G8 leaders, a BBC report on how the Nuclear Deal will help India to get in to the club of nuclear nations and give access to best of nuclear technology to solve our energy deficiency. Shining India class is impatient to make India look smart, powerful and something like an imitation of Europe.

But it is important for UPA to remember that this very same class was more pro-BJP in the last election and the shining India class did not bring Congress to power 2004. The Congress Party went after the "aam admi' and got a better endorsement and the road to power in the last election.


Some people may say that electoral politics in India is often shaped by the cast/community vote banks, local issues and few nationally relevant political positioning. There are often very broad political discourse and positioning that shape the choice of the crucial number of fence sitting voters in India. In fact often it is the five to seven percent shift of relatively more informed voters that make the big difference in the electoral arithmetic. And this five to seven percent voters are often shaped by the macro-discourse- whether it is Ram-Janmahoomi, Babri masjid, Shining India or Aam admi. This seven percent of shifting voters will increasingly play a more important role in the Indian politics. But this seven percent of voters do not include the "shining India”. They may be from the upper end of the "Bharat"- relatively educated, news reading/watching lower and middle-middle class of India -spread in and around small towns and villages across India. These voting classes, unlike the Shining India class, tend to get persuaded by political discourse and rhetoric rather than the nuanced policy implications of the Nuclear Deal.

.

However the upper end of the Bharat may think that Bush is more of a bully and America is not a country to be trusted. India's internal sense of izzat is more important and they would rather take it seriously if they feel that our "sovereignty" is mortgaged in to the powerful camp, through the Nuclear Deal. They are not bothered about IAEA Board of Governors or a lead story in the Time magazine. This class also may feel that the track record of all those countries that got in to the US Camp is less inspiring. Wherever the US got space, they made a political mess- in Pakistan, in Philippines, and in the Middle East. Today most of the people in Pakistan are anti-Musharaf because he is seen as the man of the US. So there is a general mistrust and apathy towards the US (across the developing world) particularly after the imposed war on Iraq and the nightmare it created in Iraq and across the world. So it will be a political mistake if Manmohan Sing and UPA are perceived as the lackey of the US, though UPA may claim that they want nuclear deal in the large interest of the country.

The interesting thing is that both the Right and the Left in India will make use of more political and patriotic rhetoric of "sovereignty", without bothering to get in to a nuanced policy debate or implications of the Nuclear Deal. Anyone who understands electoral politics will know that the nuanced policy discussions and editorial pieces in the English News Papers will only impress the Shining India class of around three percent of the people of India and the voting Bharat get impressed more by the political discourse and rhetoric.




The left will try and play a bit of double game here. They may claim the ownership of all pro-poor aam admi policies of the UPA, and blame congress for everything else, including for mortgaging the "sovereignty" of India to the imperialist Bush. Though the Left may claim the primary agency for all the progressive legislations and policies, the real credit for such policies legitimately belong to the government and UPA. The Left will try to give a rather self-righteous patriotic, pro-poor political spin, making strategic use of the nuclear deal. They also know that a large section of the Bharat and Muslims may be more impressed by their anti-Bush and anti-US positioning. They are least bothered about the Shining India or their English Newspapers. But this positioning of the Left will eventually made in to a double spin by the BJP and its allies to reap a better benefits in the electoral market place. This is because of the fact the track record of the Left governments in Kerala and West Bengal may neutralize their advantage over political discourse. Because, the local issues and quality of governance in West Bengal and Kerala may overwhelm the patriotic and pro-poor political positioning in the next election. So at the end of the day, the Left will end with less number of seats in the Parliament and BJP and their allies will laugh their way to Parliament.

There can indeed be debates about the real policy impact of the civil nuclear deal with the US. While the shining India may applaud it as the “arrival of India”- with the endorsement of the western powers, the large number of Bharat voters may not see the merits of policy gains in the long run. As John Maynard Keynes once said, in the long run everyone is dead and gone. Politics and electoral politics are about the issues of today and not necessarily about the potential foreign policy impact after ten yeas.

G8 Hokkaido: An Exercise in Escapism

John Samuel


The meeting of G8 leaders in Hokkaido, Japan, proved to be an exercise in escapism. The final communique of the G8 leaders is more of a recycled rhetoric of broken promises. This meeting, held in the midst of financial, fuel, food and climate crisis, failed to recognize the gravity of the crisis. The G8 leaders’ posturing of confidence will not help to solve these issues. This would further increase the legitimacy crisis of G8 as a credible forum to develop any viable solution for the ongoing problems of hunger and injustice- partly perpetuated by the corporate and institutional interests of G8 countries.


The original grouping of rich industrialized nations – G7- emerged in the context of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Now after almost thirty years, G8- that includes the co-opted Russia- face the challenge of being responsible to address the looming crisis of finance, fuel and food. The balance sheet of G8 in the last thirty years clearly shows that G8 as an institutionalized venue failed to provide any meaningful solution to the issues of poverty, war, inequities and injustice that confront the world. While they have managed to impose the neoliberal policy paradigm- with the strategic use of World Bank and IMF conditionality- on the developing world and poor nations of the world, they have not been able to do anything substantial to address trade inequities, aid diversion and debt trap. In fact, G8 leaders, instead of solving these issues, often used the Summits to push forward the interest of the rich countries, with lots of window dressing and rhetoric about poverty reduction, and more aid for the poor countries. In 2005, they have promised to write off the debt and double the aid to Africa to address issues of poverty, disease and sustainable development. After three years, these leaders stand exposed in the grave yard of broken promises.


Though a new grouping of G 5 countries, including India, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico-are being co-opted in to the periphery of the G8 Summits, the G5 Countries too failed to influence the agenda or outcome of the G8 process. So it is high time for the G5 countries to ponder the very validity of being in the periphery of the G8 Summit- legitimizing the agenda setting role of the rich and powerful countries. Instead of playing the second fiddle to the rich American- European axis and a co-opted Japan, it is high time for G5 to explore the option of reviving G 20 process as an alternate option to discuss and to adopt collective measures to address the issues that confront humanity and the world. This requires a fresh set of imagination and political will from the part of the G5 leaders.


The Hokkaido summit is happening in the midst of international policy and political crisis. Though G8 leaders claim that it is the grouping of the democratic and developed nations of the world, the irony of G8 summit is that it is one of the most undemocratic of the global process. The leaders neither discuss the key issues in their parliament nor involve citizens or civil society in deciding the agenda for the meeting. The public rating of many leaders, including George Bush and Fukuda, is at the lowest. The fact that G8 summits are held in the far away luxury resorts, fearing citizens and peoples’ action show that they are insulted from the people and process of democratic culture. This year an estimated US$ 250 million was spent by Japan for security alone. The leaders addressed the press through video conferencing facilities rather than facing the journalists Why should the “leaders of the world” be afraid of people on whose behalf they are supposed to take decisions? Such a situation seems to indicate their lack of democratic credentials and legitimacy to represent the peoples of their countries or to take decision on their behalf. Authority without accountability and transparency is essentially anti-democratic in its very content and form. So G8 Summit itself failed to meet any standards of democratic process or accountable governance.

Only three short years after G8 pledged to ‘make poverty history” at Gleneagles in 2005, the spiraling food and fuel prices is making poverty in historically large proportions. The G8 has done nothing to stop it. The ranks of the hungry have swelled in to 950 million this year and it is estimated that another 750 million are now at the risk of falling in to chronic hunger. As many as 1.7 billion people, or one of every four persons in the world, may now lack basic food security. In fact the so-called food crisis is a symptom of a deeper crisis of finance capital and speculative commodity market. Over a period of the last twenty years, most of the marginal farmers and small agricultural producers are slow poisoned through systematic withdrawal of support systems and subsidies, as a part of the neo-liberal structural adjustment Programmes imposed on the developing world and poor countries by the G8 force and WB /IMF as their extension services. The climate crisis was used as an opportunity to subsidies the rich farmers through Biofuel subsidies. The rising food price is driven partly due to new appetite for biofuel power to fuel their cars. The corn needed to fill up a car tank with ethanol could feed a hungry person for one year. This in effect make Biofuel the new poison that can undermine the food security of million of people and steal their food and lives. It is imperative to stop all subsidies for Biofuel, primarily by the US. It is also important to declare a moratorium on the diversion of agricultural land for biofuel monocropping. However, it is appalling to see the evasive tactic of G8 leaders on the issue of biolfuel perpetuating food insecurity and crisis.

Though there has been lots of discussion about climate change, G8 leaders simply failed to walk their talk. The G8 countries’ failure to reduce green house gas emissions is already wreaking havoc on agriculture through severe floods, droughts and rising temperatures. The carbon dioxide emissions from G8 countries make up to 40 percent of the world’s total emission. And yet only 13% of the world population lives in G8 countries. Not only are G8 countries responsible for large scale pollution, they are also failing to compensate poor countries that are bearing the brunt of the G8 Countries’ dirty emission. Though G8 countries have promised that that will reduce emission by half by 2050, it is too far and less of a commitment to meet the challenge of climate crisis. So the promise of 2050 is more of an act of escapist stalling tactic, rather than real commitment to act up on the climate crisis. While the environmental and economic viability of nuclear power generation is increasingly questioned in their own countries, it seems G8 is once again pedaling nuclear power generation as a response to climate crisis. When we locate this in the context of the proposed civil nuclear deal with India and the US, it is clear that many of the G8 countries seem to be more keen to market their old nuclear reactors to emerging markets such as India.

Hence, the Hokkaido G8 summit is more regressive step. The final communique thoroughly exposed the lack of policy or political imagination of the G8 leaders. The communique also signified their lack of political will and the deficit of moral and political legitimacy to act as the leaders of the world. So the pertinent question is whether G8 is a part of the problem or part of the solution. The Hokkaido Summit seems to suggest that G8 is more keen to remain as a part of the problem. The world requires more accountable, imaginative and multilateral process to address the issues of injustice, poverty and environmental crisis. The answer should lie more in reforming the multilateral United Nations Process, rather than quasi global governance posturing of the G8 leaders.