SAARC summit : Doubts and hopes

By Shailendra K Upadhyay

The eleventh summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) begins today. An advisory committee was formed consisting of people representing various sectors and the committees having completed their deliberations submitted the reports to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on December 19. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has circulated the agenda as well as the draft of the Kathmandu Declaration which would be adopted by the Summit meeting tomorrow.

At the same time, His Majesty’s Government has made all necessary arrangements to receive the Heads of state and government, and to make their stay pleasant and comfortable. Those involved in all these preparations have begun count down with great confidence. Still, in the public mind, great doubt is lurking about the possibility of the summit. This doubt has been strengthened because of the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan after the terrorist attack on Indian parliament.

India and Pakistan are most important countries of this region. In order to survive and develop, SAARC needs the participation and support of both countries. Any possibility of flare-up between these two important members of SAARC leading to a large-scale tussle shall have a disastrous effect on summit preparations. The reason is quite obvious.

The incident of terrorist attack on the Indian parliament has enraged the entire Indian masses and their hostility toward Pakistan has reached new heights. The militants and religious fundamentalists have been demanding heavy action against Pakistan.

While recent events have been the alarming cause for such a mood the Indo-Pakistan tension has been a permanent phenomenon since the partition of India and creation of Pakistan. The tension between the two neighbours has had its ups and downs. They have already fought three wars in last fifty years. On the eve of the independence of India, when its partition and creation of Pakistan had become certain, the British had proposed that the native state in the then India could choose either to remain with India or Pakistan or remain independent .The native rulers had to sign an "instrument of accession" declaring their choice. Raja Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler of Muslim dominated Kashmir chose to join India. This act was never accepted by Pakistan which was created on the basis of "the nation theory". Pakistan always held the view that the Muslims had to join the Islamic Pakistan. India rejected Pakistan’s theory and not only raised the issue of legitimacy due to the Kashmir ruler’s signing of the instrument of accession in favour of India but also the support given to the rulers’ choice by Kashmir’s leaders like Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference which had a real hold over the people of Kashmir.

The arguments by India and Pakistan on Kashmir issue is so fundamentally different that a possibility of reconciliation between the two seems impossible. So as long as India and Pakistan do not find a way to deal with the issue, taking into account the enormous expense to maintain the line of control while millions of people are deprived of basic needs to sustain their lives, there is no way to remove tension between these two.

India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. The development of nuclear capacity has been to create a deterrence against the other. However, the possession of nuclear arsenal by both countries has become mutually destructive. So, the possibility of "no win" war has itself created nuclear deterrent. This has not stopped periodic arms conflict though both seem to be conscious of their responsibilities as nuclear powers.

The recent developments in our region particularly the escalation of tension between India and Pakistan has created an uncertain atmosphere but restrain shown by India assures that war is not imminent in near future. India will do everything in its might to isolate Pakistan as a state which sponsors terrorism and the tension may not show any sign to deescalate soon.

SAARC summit under the shadow of such developments may not be as fruitful as it could be in normal time but there is enough room to believe that the SAARC agenda containing many area and issue of common interest will be addressed and certain common commitment will be made.

The Eleventh SAARC summit is supposed to address inter alia the question of terrorism, a move towards South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), and a plan of action for the alleviation of poverty.

Poverty and terrorism are common problems. Poverty and unemployment are the root causes of anguish and desperation which lead to insane and cruel behaviour. The question of fulfilling basic needs of the people is neither properly addressed, nor is a strong plan of action evolved. This shows the basis for terrorism shall remain alive and vibrant. In order to achieve political stability in the region, the menace of terrorism has to be curbed. For this, activities on the economic front to alleviate poverty has become a matter of supreme importance.

For this reason, SAFTA assumes a very important position. SAFTA shall not only create various economic opportunities but it shall also add a new dimension in the area of interaction among the people. The more is the interaction among the people the chances of better understanding among the people grows with it. The growth in better understanding among the people can act as a catalyst to put pressure upon their respective governments to put aside all prejudices and create new avenues of understanding.

The very fact that the summit would take place after a long period of three years and half is in itself an achievement and despite the gloomy atmosphere in the region there is strong reason to hope that the summit would be able to pave a path for moving forward to the desired direction.

(The author is former minister of foreign affairs)

Emancipated woman

I have a secret to tell you. I am amongst the women who are called emancipated. I try not to think of the term "emancipated" too much. It feels like too much of a hypocrisy; also like too much of a burden. It lives like a weight in the pit of my stomach. It’s the biggest ambiguity in my life - do I want it? Do I not? Can I live without it? Am I strong enough to live with it?

There is a lot I know. I know my abilities, my capabilities. I know about everything I can do. There are dreams in my heart. There is a confidence in me that tells me I can hold eternity in my palms and live it. There is a confidence which tells me I can reach any height I set for myself. I know the opportunities open to me and my like.

And I know the opportunities are tightly shut. I know my abilities, my capabilities, my dreams will remain in my heart. They will hurt in my heart like a wound. They germinated in me with the emancipation. They germinated after a vicious war. Is the war won? Is victory mine? Or am I just a privileged, patronized prisoner?

My democratic father gave me the best education within his reach, he has made my ideas democratic. I don’t know whether to thank him for that or not. He has opened my eyes, shown me the facts for what they are. I cannot live like my mother, nor like the simple woman next door. And democratic as he may be, he cannot go against the trends of the society. So one day I got married. I did not say no when the talks began because deep in my heart I knew there would be no difference between this one or that one or that one. So one day I got married to a man who was like any other man.

Now, I wake in the morning, the golden sun shines in my soul. I prepare a breakfast. My husband helps me with it. Only that I am expected to do it and I am expected to be grateful to him for his help. He brags to his friends that he is a good cook, I brag to his friends too - after all I am grateful to him.

I wear trousers to office. I pay a price for it. The boys hoot at me, women in saris hate me out of envy, my husband does not approve but the trousers are the dress code of my office. So I pay the price and continue to wear them. I get money home. I am proud of it but I am scared of revealing my pride. I am aware of my husband’s psychology - female pride puts him off. He thinks of it as arrogance. He thinks of his own pride as self-respect. I agree with him. I cannot have self-respect because there has been a day back then when I stuffed my self away and forgot it. I don’t when it happened. I just know one day I felt a pain, unbearable, hard, and hollow and when I looked in I wasn’t there.

I didn’t care much for a while and the pain only came at intervals but of late I have begun to miss myself. I am so terribly lonely when I am alone, there is no one to talk to . I am mute and dumb and thrown out. I cannot tell myself my secrets, they seem too blasphemous for confession. I cannot recollect scenes, they are too nostalgic and I cannot enjoy an unusual scene, it seems so false. For everything I do I need somebody else. I have to talk to others, I have to be with them all the time. Even after I have read a favour book I have to tell about it to the world. I am too scared of finding the wrong interpretation within me. The others have become all important.

I have many friends but I have no best friend. I used to be my best friend, I used to know everything about me. Now I know nothing. I don’t know my dreams, my aspirations, my hopes. Only memories of what I had once told myself remain and even those are misty with time. People have supplanted me, they try to fill in my hollow, they tell me about my dreams and aspirations and hopes and because I am no longer with me I believe them and follow them.

I am perfect. I fit in outside, I fit in at home. I am a good wife, I am a good employee. I never ask for a single rupee my husband, I never let him feel I am not dependent on him. My boss harasses me, I keep silent. The liberated society is not liberated enough to forgive me for being beautiful and smart. Everyone is happy with me, they love me, they rejoice at what I am , they are with me. Only that I am lost and gone there where nobody lives. Sometimes I want to go there too so that I can be with me and we can be friends again.

But I can’t. I am an emancipated woman living in an emancipated world. In this emancipated world you can befriend anything, anything from cars to chocolates to religion to sociology to politicians to saints to naivete to intellectualism, you can befriend anything except yourself.

I am an open book to the world, an alien to myself. You know why? Because I am afraid of the dry, hard thing I have become and because it helps me keep up my sanity.

Refugees and Bhutan’s security

By rakesh chhetri

Finally, the snail-paced verification or interview of refugees living at Khudunabari camp, one of the seven refugee camps undertaken for verification by the Nepal-Bhutan Joint Verification Team was completed on December 15, 2001. The verification started on March 26, 2001. Khudunabari is the smallest of seven camps, having 12,447 refugees in 1,963 families. The JVT has completed verification of 12,090 refugees in 1,935 families at Khudunabari camp in 264 days (153 working days).

Proof: The JVT was mandated to verify the status of refugees on the basis of oral and written interviews and documents held by them. It checked and verified all documents available with the refugees including citizenship cards, government appointment letters, tax receipts, house numbers, driving and gun licences, etc and it disclosed that almost all interviewed refugees possessed some kind of document issued to them by the Royal Government of Bhutan. This was proof of their origin or their last legal habitual residence in Bhutan.

Next step: After the completion of verification at Khudunabari camp, the following stages are now foreseen: start repatriation of the verified refugees at Khudunabari, initiate categorization of the verified refugees, undertake verification at the remaining six camps, and categorize the refugees at the end of verification of all refugees in the seven camps. The verification process was smooth, though it was time consuming. The refugees cooperated peacefully in the verification. However, the categorization process is not going to be such smooth sailing as the verification. Both governments need to harmonize their positions on each category on a individual refugee basis. There are still strong differences in the positions of the two governments on the three categories, namely, Bhutanese forcefully evicted, Bhutanese who committed crimes and non-Bhutanese. There will be disharmony among the two governments at every stage of categorization and on the category of each individual refugee. Again, refugees may not remain as passive or patient during their categorization process as they were in the verification. As soon as they are put in the category not expected to return, they will definitely create problems.

Geopolitics: Since, the roots of the current political crisis in Bhutan and the refugee problem lie in Bhutan’s geopolitics and population politics, the refugee crisis is not going to be resolved soon through a bilateral mechanism. The various policies of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) in the last two decades reflect the Ngalung/Drukpa dominated government’s motive for uprooting Nepali speaking Lhotshampa people from Bhutan and reducing their numbers by all means. Be it Drukpanization or Bhutanization or application of the Citizenship and Marriage Acts or NOCs, all are directed against Lhotshampas in the south. The government devised various strategies to bring about a demographic balance favouring a Drukpa/Ngalung nation by reducing the number of Lhotshampas to around 25 percent for retaining their domination.

Security: This view is still retained by the government of Bhutan. A government-sponsored article in six parts was recently published in the government owned Kuensel newspaper. It argued ridiculously that ‘Any attempt to resolve the refugee crisis in Nepal will have to address Bhutan’s security concern, for which the people of Nepali ethnicity, who immigrated in the late 19th century, are considered volatile for political stability’. Thus, the Bhutanese ruling elite has linked the return of the refugee with Bhutan’s contrived security imperatives. This is a clear indication from Bhutan that its ruling elite are in no mood to resolve the refugee issue and take back its ‘people of Nepali ethnicity’ from the camps in Nepal. An entire ethnic group living in the country for centuries and accepting its leadership, was suddenly found to become too ‘volatile’ for security and made a geopolitical scapegoat. In a multi-ethnic nation, it is the state’s responsibility to bring all groups into the national mainstream. Tomorrow, will they throw out the Sharchops too for being a security threat to the ruling elite? The Tibetans were similarly thrown out in the mid nineties. Personal security threat to the political leadership cannot be equated with the state’s intrinsic security system. Governments and leaders may come and go but the state remains.

It seems that Bhutan has not been able to distinguish between the security of the political leadership and that of the state. To the ruling elite, "Pluralism is only practical for a larger country where a diversity of customs, traditions and culture enriches that nation. A small country like Bhutan cannot afford the luxury of such diversity which may impede the growth of social harmony and unity among its people" - this "ethnic cohesion" mantra was delivered by the king in 1990 during the initial stages of Bhutan’s crisis. Instead of abandoning such cultural cleansing policy even in hindsight, it has been unabashedly incorporated into the country’s security perception.

The article asserts that Bhutan has chosen ‘non-military alternatives, such as cultural cohesion and neutrality for its long-term security’. Why were other non-military alternatives not chosen. Why did it choose ‘cultural cohesion’? - since it suited the ruling elite. Cultural cohesion in fact, is cultural cleansing. That is what Bhutan did to the Nepali speaking Bhutanese. State sponsored cultural cohesion in a multi-ethnic society is dangerous and potentially fragments a nation. People are very sentimental and emotional about their culture and language. In modern times, no nation can afford to take to the path of ‘cultural cohesion’. History is witness that culture and identity have not withered away. The diversity of a nation’s culture definitely enriches that nation and enhances its security.

A variety of ‘non-military alternatives’ are available to enhance the state security system in the overall perspective. Liberal democracy, human rights, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, separation of powers, a vibrant and functioning civil society and political parties are the best available non-military ‘security alternatives’ which strengthen the security of the state.. These elements were never considered as they meant the erosion of the power and perks of the current ruling elite. Bhutan’s preference for ‘non-military alternatives’ such as " cultural cohesion" reflects a totalitarian path. Cohesion of culture also meant the ‘cohesion of opinions and views with the state’ and non-acceptance to state views or those opposing them were considered anti-national and traitors. Cohesion of culture was invented to underpin feudalism and compliance and subservience to an archaic, feudal and undemocratic system.

Against the background of this contrived security notion Bhutan initiated a number of fake and hollow national integration policies in the early eighties, which failed totally. One cannot construct a national integration policy by doling out monetary benefits for inter-ethnic marriages. Neither can ‘cultural cohesion’ be achieved by forcing a dress or language code. The primary requirement of Bhutanese nationhood is the consolidation and defence of a nation-state system, where all ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious groups share the common ‘space’.

External role: Under current circumstances, there is no possibility of Bhutan taking back its citizens from the camps. The lesson of Bhutan and other refugee crises around the world is that refugees return only if another country or countries make it happen, and that country in the context of the Bhutanese refugees is India. One can never ignore the towering role of India in resolving the refugee imbroglio. Its role is the single most important factor when it comes to the refugees’ legitimate aspiration to go home. Sadly, it is altogether a different matter that India does not want to mediate between two neighbours. However, the friendly government of India should use its "good offices" to help resolve the refugee issue so that the helpless refugees can go back home. It will be a humanitarian act and not an interference in the internal matters of its neighbours. International law also offers provisions for "good offices" to resolve long unresolved issues. India commands respects in Bhutan, Nepal and the refugee community. It is only in the absence of a positive role by India that the refugees have taken their issue to international forums.

(The author is a Bhutanese specializing in security and strategic issues)