SAARC, caught up in a mess

By MADHAB P KHANAL

After an uncertain spell of over two years the eleventh summit meeting of SAARC heads of state and government concluded in Kathmandu a fortnight ago with apparently sickening euphoria and stereotyped fanfare. To what extent the meeting succeeded in making any head way towards the common objectives for which the regional grouping was formed sixteen years ago remains absolutely a matter of abstract reasoning for now. However, for the people of Kathmandu it is a great consolation that the logistically successful event left behind a city that has undergone a dramatic face lift within an unbelievably short span of time. It is undeniable testimony that Nepalese planners and professionals are second to none in performing miracles in planning and execution. But at what premium they demonstrate such unusual competence remains somewhat enigmatic for the flabbergasted taxpayer.

Nevertheless, with reminiscences of the third SAARC summit at the back of their mind, people in Nepal are now convinced that the country needs occasions of such nature and magnitude at least biennially so that the concerned agencies of the government as well as the metropolitan functionaries would be morally obliged to keep the city’s infrastructures well maintained and its environment hygienically less harmful. Similarly, the massive preparations carried out for the regional summit have also made the people understand that there is no dearth of funds. If there is anything lacking in this country it is honesty and dedication among politicians and bureaucrats. A dent in the state coffers is a matter of lesser importance than satisfying the ego of those at the helm of affairs.

Intended to be a summit meeting of the chief executives of the seven countries to explore and expand the areas of regional cooperation, the event was marked conspicuously by an unseemly exchange of bitterness between the two blustering nuclear rivals of South Asia right from its very start. Owing to the ominous winds of confrontation blowing across the volatile borders between India and Pakistan, the entire atmosphere of the summit was charged with suspense as to the diplomatic moves of Vajpayee and Musharraf. A bonus for the host was a sigh of relief that the eleventh diplomatic jamboree could manage to complete its trite rituals.

Whether or not carrying out bilateral diplomatic exercises with a muffled undercurrent of belligerency between two member states falls within the purview of the Charter of the regional club, the inaugural speeches delivered by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf have for the first time exploded the myth that the SAARC forum is only for multilateral purposes. If objectively analysed, their speeches are in no way supportive of the so-called multilateral character of the association. It may be the beginning of the end of the sanctity envisioned by its founding fathers.

India and Pakistan, the two leading members of SAARC, used the rostrum of the summit meeting to give vent to their fifty year old mutual animosity and belligerent emotions generated by the unfortunate division of Kashmir whose mountainous terrain forms the strategic frontier between the two countries. Over this bone of contention they had already fought two wars when they had not attained nuclear power status. They are now poised for yet another confrontation which may have unknown consequences for the entire region. Nor can the gnawing dispute between two archrivals be resolved without tangible concession from either side, something for which they do not appear to be ready. Under these circumstances it is against the principles of logic to expect the regional body to remain strictly multilateral in scope or be unaffected by the bellicose demeanour of India and Pakistan. The reality is that SAARC is likely to be taken hostage by these nuclear bullies turn by turn as required by their diplomatic expediency.

What SAARC expects from its member states is diplomatic honesty towards the concept of regional cooperation and not pretentious pledges and commitments as have been noticed over the years. The importance and achievements of the association are so inflated that they look absolutely disproportionate. It is a foregone conclusion that the association is progressively losing its original aura and importance due to the nonchalant attitude of several member states towards any genuine spirit of regional solidarity and the regional conventions and resolutions already agreed upon by members. Failure by individual countries to bring about enabling legislation has meant the regional convention on terrorism signed by SAARC chief executives fourteen years ago has so far not come into force and is not likely to be backed up by country legislation in the foreseeable future. Similarly, the concept of SAFTA among seven countries with different economic parametres and trade policies basically dictated by their individual political interests is nothing more than a rosy vision.

The argument put forward by the Pakistani president with regard to empowering SAARC to thrash out bilateral issues is essentially a valid one. It is an indisputable fact that without expanding the scope of the regional organisation and devising a viable mechanism within its framework so as to deal with contentious issues that may have plagued interstate relations among member countries, the objectives of SAARC will remain ever elusive. However, such a fundamental change in the concept of the regional organisation requires a consensus of all the member countries which under the prevailing circumstances looks pretty difficult to secure. Nor can SAARC mature into a vibrant regional forum to deal with the complex realities that its member states are confronted with without enjoying any
mediatory jurisdiction over bilateral disputes among member states. It is now high time they reviewed the sixteen-year-old concept and rectify its inherent weaknesses if they want SAARC to survive as a competent regional body.

The two decade old problem of terrorism in Sri Lanka has a profound bearing upon Indo-Sri Lanka relations. It is widely believed that the State of Tamil Nadu is still a safe haven for the Tamil Tigers. In this context Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga’s categorical remark during the summit meeting that there can be no room for double standards in combating terrorism is highly reflective of what the island nation feels about India vis-a-vis the bloody insurgency carried out by ethnic Tamils in the northeastern part of Sri Lanka. The continuing militancy of Kashmiri separatists and their senseless acts of terror have recurrently brought India and Pakistan to a flash point. Similarly, the twelve year old problem of a hundred thousand Bhutanese of Nepalese ethnicity inhumanely uprooted by the Druk repressive regime shows no signs of early resolution. All negotiations conducted so far have turned out ineffective as far as their repatriation is concerned. India’s policy towards the refugee stalemate has so far been far from friendly. Thus relations between these two kingdoms remain confined to diplomatic rhetoric. Bangladesh, a country created in 1971 with the overt strategic involvement of India by dismembering Pakistan, has been gradually distancing itself from Indian hegemony in South Asia owing to the latter’s overbearing attitude towards her neighbours. Under these circumstances, fostering of regional solidarity is nothing but wishful thinking.

Road economies and diseconomies

By RITESH SHRESTHA

As I rushed as usual to my Ba 1 Pa (I believe one of the oldest bikes in Nepal) to get a rough ride on the busy roads dotted with potholes and the rest (let me not please elaborate more), I suddenly found that such roads were suddenly disappearing. Each day, I would witness more roads getting completely polished and parks carrying the real meaning of ‘park’. This is what I call ‘rapid development’. Since ages, we have been embarking on various kinds of tasks to bring about rapid development in the country, and we know pretty well how effective they have been. I was stunned to have such a massive amount of developmental work finish within a very short span of time.

Of course, the SAARC Summit was a matter of prestige for our country, and our manpower worked very vigorously day and night. But, the point is we can still keep up the spirit and continue such work without having to wait for other reputed foreigners to visit the Himalayan kingdom. And by the way, we can well guess what amount of the national budget has been wisely, and of course, unwisely spent in the so-called "beautifying projects". Don’t you think life starts with money and ends with it?

The SAARC hullbaloo gave us a great time by making us wait for hours and hours just to cross a road. We indeed needed tight security, and as a result, I guess all the gadiwallas and bikewallas learnt lessons on the valley’s nooks and crannies, but it was of course cost free. Had it not been for the summit, they would have had no chance of exploring the valley’s corners and forgotten alleys. Here, I am not talking about those regular commuters.

Bottom line: Though you may have realized after the summit that such routes are very economical, it’s actually not so. You know how pathetic are these very routes (the ones unnecessary for SAARC), which will degrade your vehicle with much bumping and screeching capable of dismantling it. Then if you go for repairs, you are most likely to face diseconomies. So, I guess, it’s wise if you opt not to use such routes as far as money is concerned. Don’t say I’m telling this because I’m going to continue with my old fuel consumption principle. I’m telling all this because I don’t want you to get into the trouble which I’ve gotten into many a time. Please understand the problem of those of us who can’t afford to ride gently on black-topped roads, which we would have definitely loved to. You know the economies and diseconomies of salary, expenditure, corruption, labour, which all increase and decrease independently and dependently. Some astronomically, and some at a snail’s pace.

Of death, hope and dispair

By JOSEPH VERGHESE

Alexander Pope said, "Hope dies hardest in the human heart." Jean Paul Sartre thought hope depicted the other side of despair.

We will come to that aspect of hope and despair presently, but first, this...

The six year old girl in Isabella Allende’s novel, The House of Spirits, was bored stiff and skeptical in the extreme, at all that the doom forecasting priest had to say during his Good Friday sermon, about sin, sinners, death and hell. She stood up, and in her thin reedy piping voice opined, for all the congregation to hear, "In that case, Father, we’re all (unprintable)." The padre’s face turned a horrid purple, and he chortled in righteous wrath, "The girl’s possessed!", even as her startled mother hastily hustled the little possessed one down the aisle, straight to the door, and directly out of God’s house. It takes, as the hoary saying goes, all kinds...

Mario Puzo in his The Godfather speaks of how Don Vito Corleone of the Sicilian American mafia family of that name, went to visit his "paizan", a long time family "consigliori", lying just one feeble sigh away from death. The two together had over many a decade fought dourly both the "pezzenovanti" and the deadly rival "families" with signal success. So it was that the dying man cheerfully suggested to his visitor, "Godfather, let’s do it once again; together we can cheat Satan when he comes to take me away!" Never one to resort in thought, word or deed to levity in any form, Godfather Vito Corleone gently rebuked his friend saying, "Don’t blaspheme so!" "Infamita" was
another word he was known to use on the occasion, with equally telling effect. Such gaping gulfs do mark apart, the closest of pals in concepts of such weighty matters as death and faith.

It was just the other day that I saw a rather pretty (albeit a bit messy in part) film, name of Original Sin. Angelina Joilie (Best Actress Oscar winner of 2000 - not for this picture) played the part of a wholly bad, ravishing and damned young woman, opposite a charmingly Latin American lover Antonio Banderas, portraying a young and happy Cuban coffee planter millionaire, totally besotted by his brand new wife Jolie. One thing and another Jolie towards the end, finds herself in a death cell. With barely a half hour more to live, she’s visited by the prison chaplain. She asks him, "Father, do you believe, there’s redemption?" "Yes", relies the padre, soto voce. "Even for a woman like me?" she persevered, wanting seemingly to make absolutely sure. "Yes", repeated the padre solemnly. "Then", she sighed contentedly, "I’ll see him in Heaven?" "Yes", was all the cleric could bring himself to say. "Father", she invited him blissfully, even as she slid gracefully to her knees, "pray with me!"

When the fateful hour chimed, the prison warden attended by two of his men entered the cell, and said softly, "Madam, the time has come!"

The clumsy figure huddling on the floor at the very centre of the cell, shrouded wholly in a coarse rug, was quivering most violently; and then the rug fell away, revealing the abject, frightened form of the padre clad in, just nothing at all!

The film directly ends with a scene in a gaming casino, where Jolie teaming up with hubby Banderas, is seen blithely fleecing at cards, a jolly bunch of willing middle aged, well healed fall guys; the oldest among whom says ever so gallantly, "Isn’t it a rare privilege to be present in the company of such
matchless beauty!"

And the moral of the story? "Satan to the rescue?"

And then there’s that rather disappointing picture...disappointing, considering Anthony Hopkins and Brad Pitt are featured in it...Meet Joe Black. Black portrayed by Pitt is DEATH, who had recently come into the work, life and home...as also the reckoning of the young and charming daughter...of the gracefully and contentedly aging Hopkins. When Black had first arrived there, the two had struck a deal: Death would wait to carry him away, until such time as the host failed to keep boredom and ennui out of the weird guest’s existence.

The tycoon was celebrating his 70th birthday at his swanky home. There was quite a crowd present. All were having a great time. Then the old man got up to speak. Said he, he felt, he had everything he could wish for; so much so, he didn’t know of one single thing more, that he would wish to have.

Evidently death felt bored at last...or could it be, he had another excellent reason for what he would very shortly do? Possibly. The old man had warned his previous daughter against thinking ever of marrying Joe Black, without at the same time, enlightening her about the reason behind such a ban.

Presently she saw the two men walk away in each other’s company, leaving behind, the family and friends assembled there. After a short while, her eager eyes caught sight of the young and distinctly personable man strolling casually back towards where she stood. Even as she joyfully welcomed him back, and walked beside him to the house, she asked him lazily, "Where’s dad? Black smiled enigmatically, yeh confidently, as he replied in a matter of fact voice, "He rode away on a big, white horse." That was all. She didn’t seem to mind, much less care! Could Death, especially in the form of Brad Pitt’s Joe Black, possess powers to bring about such mystifying responses, in those it wishes to influence?

Incidentally, the PROPLE magazine of the US thinks, William Bradley Pitt is the "Sexiest Man Alive." Khalid Mohamed, who recently interviewed the Hollywood superstar in London, for the Times of India, agrees, he’s indeed American filmland’s "Golden Boy" at 38; and recalls gushing extravagantly appreciative remarks about him...the like of, "drop-dead gorgeous", "heavenly hunk".

To sign off on a more becomingly sombre note...we’re here thinking about grave issues centred round death, hope and despair and perhaps, faith as well.

On Sunday, January 6, the BBC’s "Agenda" programme had for its theme, HOPE. The anchorman sought forthwith to link Hope, with Death, implying hope about an existence of a worthwhile nature beyond the grave.

Terrywaite, the Englishman who had spent a long time in Beirut as a hostage, thought there was nothing particularly absurd in "hoping" about some kind of an extended existence after death...nothing at all finite or exact for a picture, though.

A medical doctor, an agnostic, was of opinion, possibly the best thing about death was, it offers hope of escape from pain and anxiety, for those who are suffering most...peace and quietude even after. He didn’t think, there was any kind of existence to follow death.

The third man present, a writer, admitted frankly, he was a secularist, an atheist. To him, death was inexorably the final act, and nothing existed on the other side of the grave.