‘Will SAARC ever take off?’

By NAGENDRA CHHETRI

The long awaited eleventh SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit took place just a few weeks ago after a gap of almost three and half years. This summit, held in a most tense and crucial situation in the region, was able to bring Nepal to the forefront of all major international media something unprecedented in the modern history of this country not counting the June 1st 2001 national crisis. Although the nation was under a state of emergency and the army was mobilised to curb terrorist activities, Nepal was finally able to bring together all the other six regional heads of state/government at one table to make their statements. The diplomatic skill Nepal displayed and the foolproof security it provided to the dignitaries have once again strengthened the credibility of this nation. At a time when many believe that terrorists thrive within the cracks of foundering states and many remote villages in Nepal were in the grasp of terrorists, the government’s confidence in the ability of the security forces has reinforced the confidence not only of the Nepalese but also the international community in the security system of this country. The successful holding of the SAARC summit has proved that the forces of order prevail over the forces of disorder in this country although the clash would continue over the next few years. The security arrangement came into sharp focus and went through an acid taste but came out with flying colours even during the visit of US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The international aid consortium for Nepal meeting is also being held in Kathmandu and Pokhara. This proves that security in Nepal is foolproof.

Anyway, what Nepalese should take pride in is that the two rival but principal actors i.e India and Pakistan who have been fighting mainly over Kashmir, the unsolved legacy of partition, shook hands in the full glare of the media, watched by millions around the world. This took place in the Nepalese capital when the two were amassing troops along the border. This was one of the achievements of the eleventh SAARC summit along with the commitments like the South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAFTA) accord and collective efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and women trafficking. But what tangible achievements have SAARC made in its 15 year history and why not consider this?

SAARC was established with the aim of alleviating poverty, identifying and exploiting potential areas for economic, social and cultural cooperation amongst its members, and bringing a spirit of understanding and cooperation to bear on future relations amongst them. All the countries in the region are bound by many common values rooted into their social, ethnic, cultural and historical traditions and therefore a regional grouping such as SAARC can provide a logical response to the multitude of problems of the region. Their individual and regional strengths, their potential as a huge market and their substantial human and natural resources are tremendous. Given genuine and sincere effort to mobilise these resources by all the members, SAARC could be an affective regional cooperation body which can make optimum use of this potential for the maximum benefit of the people, and can accelerate the pace of their economic development thereby enhancing their national and collective self-reliance.

Despite all these possibilities and efforts SAARC has not really been able to take off. There are many reasons for this, external as well as internal. The external are mainly that the member countries have established strong linkages with their respective major donors. The imports of these countries are aid-tied, explicitly or implicitly. Any region oriented import trade is constrained by the dynamics of their aid dependence. India and Pakistan, the principal actors, locked as they are over Kashmir and because of their continuing insecurity perception vis a vis each other based on past wars and hostilities, maintain and strengthened their defence related external linkages. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the power struggle and rise and fall of the Taliban as well as the terrorist attack at the Indian Parliament on December 13, have brought a sea change in the power game in South Asia. The biggest hitch in the development of SAARC, probably the youngest of all regional grouping, is the article in its charter which prohibits a bilateral issue from being raised at the summit, and in the SAARC countries there are serious and sharp bilateral issues that need to be sorted out if SAARC is to ever become a strong regional body like ASEAN or the EU. Almost all the neighbours have some kind of uneasy relations with India and that has got to be sorted out first.

India being a large country by all accounts, the largest in the region has to show some magnanimity towards its smaller partners if SAARC is to fulfil its mission. No one denies the fact that India is the most powerful regional player simply because of its shape, size, central location, economic and military power, population and resources, although it is expected to treat all its neighbours as equal partners and still play a pivotal role in all SAARC programme. Whether we like it or not, unless India shows a positive attitude towards SAARC, unless all disputes, including territorial, are amicably solved, SAARC will not develop. Drug abuse, drug trafficking, illicit arms trade and terrorism, including cross-border, will continue to pose a serious threat to security and stability in the region. When the major irritants are removed SAARC can become a role model of economic development and embark on its collective programme of cooperation in a more confident manner. It can spare time and resources for a collective war against terrorism, poverty, hunger and disease, the objective of SAARC. India and Pakistan can use the resources, now used on defence, to improve the quality of life for millions of people. SAARC must draw lessons from the EU, ASEAN, GCC, and many other groupings/alliances if it wishes to fulfil its lofty ideals in future. SAARC lacks within itself a basic inherent confidence building mechanism. Unless mutual suspicion, threatening the vital interests of member countries, is removed and confidence building measures are taken for the common development of the whole region without hampering anyone’s interests, SAARC will not take off.

There is a school of thought which tends to believe that the SAARC summit was hijacked by Indo-Pak tension over the issue of Kashmir, but actually Nepal was able to bring these two belligerent nations together in Kathmandu. Many believe that India should rethink its decision of denying its airspace to Pakistan Airlines in view of the overall impact on neighbours in the economic, political and diplomatic fields? For this school of thought, India’s big brother attitude is a stumbling block for SAARC. Instead of creating an ugly Indian, Pakistani or Nepalese picture why cannot all sit down together and talk? If India and Pakistan ever accept the present LOC as a permanent international border will the Kashmiris stop their so called freedom struggle? This region has been in intense conflict for the last fifty-five years. Is it not time to settle this unfinished legacy of partition in the sub-continent?

There is another school of thought as to why SAARC cannot and will not take off. This is geographic non-convergence of the membership. Pakistan has been looking toward the West and North i.e the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). India on the other hand, is tending to look East and South. These tendencies clearly indicate that both the principal actors are exploring better alternatives. There seems to be a strong feeling in India that the concept of SAARC itself is a ganging up of smaller neighbours against it. So far there is no major bilateral or multilateral investment in each other’s country. Both in India and Pakistan there is still a mix feeling, await and see attitude till a better serving alternative is found. May be India is looking towards ASEAN countries like Vietnam as a close and practical partner as both have suffered attacks from China, and are natural allies against the perceived expansionism of that country. The shape and size of India, its central position, its economic strength, its industrial growth rate, its military might, its aspiration to world status and permanent membership in the Security Council simply will not allow SAARC to take off effectively however benign be the Indian foreign policy of treating as equal partners all smaller neighbours. Studies show that Indian public opinion is clearly divided on this issue. Globalisation dictates that India ignore SAARC and look for something more substantial rather than providing a strong platform for smaller neighbours to stand up in collectively against India itself. In a such scenario will SAARC ever take off?

Tax on black

By RAZEN MANANDHAR

On behalf of all the black money-makers, I thank the Finance Ministry for allowing us to pay tax on our black money. It is so kind of the government that it has now pardoned us of all our sins to the nation, people and the Goddess of Wealth herself. Thank you sir, I thank you again for extending the period.

While collecting the black money doing anything whatever that we need no longer disclose, we were sure the government would not be so cruel as to ask for the source of our income. Of course, why should the government think about counting the trees when were are here to feed you mangos. It can’t be possible when the cabinet is made of such great persons who have good record of ‘undisclosable resources".

If anything has changed in the past 12 years, it is the living standard of a certain class of people. Though the national economy is going down day by day, importing of elegant vehicles, use of mobile phones, construction of business complexes, purchasing of land in the capital is mounting day by day. Nobody has time to think whether this is an index of a positive or negative economy.

Well, what and how we make money is an open secret. I don’t think I need to hide our sources again. Let me open my heart today. I swear you can’t punish us because we never leave our footprints behind. We make black money by hiring aged airplanes, leasing or even selling government land, passing out contracts for government buildings, roads, bridges and repairing government vehicles. Do you mean to be rude to us? Can you? Have you ever found adequate evidence of corruption? So we are safe here.

And the government must be thankful to us that we are coming into the tax network on our own. We aspire to take part in the government’s mission to quell the Maoists. Let our money be useful (the price is that you will convert it into white money). In this regard we also thank the Maobadi brothers and sisters for turning us into genuine, responsible and patriotic tax payers.

The government has shown its level of thinking and is behaving like a responsible one by now. The duty of a state is not to find out how somebody earns money in a democratic country. This cannot be possible when the country is heading towards the most awaited war of the decade. Taking the critical situation into accounts, nobody can verify if we collect money by selling drugs, taking bribes or trafficking women across the border.

Being a friendly government, it has no record of who has earned how much money. Not a single authority has ever tried to trace the income sources of the "professional" political leaders, who have no legitimate sources of income and of government staff who build houses in Kathmandu and invest in industries with their minimal salary. Fortune makers like us are always out of the reach of the Revenue Department’s net of knowledge. The policy makers only know that we have lots of money. That is the basis of success for the national mission that started two months ago.

Who knows, the government may change its mind tomorrow and abruptly stop this bumper offer scheme. So, I request all my fellow nation-builders to disclose their "genuine or other types of" fortune now and be good citizens. Opportunity never waits for you. Catch it while you can.

Meet the great Indian novelist

By JUG suraiya

As this typical Delhi conversation shows, fact is increasingly becoming stranger than fiction in India: Wife (reading newspaper): Hulloji, it is saying here that Indians doing fiction in Angrezi are making too much money these days. Do you think I too could do fiction?

Husband: Oh, ho! You have been doing fiction for years every time you are telling people your age. But no one is buying it. Such exchanges inspired me to dream up a TV interview that I might do in the near future with a Great Indian Novelist. Here goes:

JS: Indians writing novels in English have never had it so good. Arundhati Roy, Vikram Seth, Raj Kamal Jha, they’re all cashing in on the great Indian novel. But with more and more writers jumping onto the bandwagon, the competition is getting fiercer. Today we have with us here in the studio a writer who is really making it big — and I mean big — in the world of Indo-Anglian literature — Ms Mona Noma. Here she comes. Let’s give her a big hand (Studio applause. Mona Noma and JS sit down).

JS: Ms Noma, you are the latest writer to join the ranks of great Indian novelists....

Noma (cutting me short): I am not a great Indian novelist. I am the greatest Indian novelist.

JS: Greatest Indian novelist? Do you base that judgment on objective critical criteria?

Noma: No. I base the judgment on objective weighing machine (snaps her fingers. Two workmen drag in a huge dummy book the size of a large suitcase).

Noma (triumphantly): Now if that isn’t the greatest Indian novel you tell me what is! 78 kg if it’s an ounce!

JS (dazed): God! What’s it called?

Noma: Yes.

JS (puzzled): It’s called ‘Yes’?

Noma: No.

JS: But you just said ‘yes’!

Noma: No. You did.

JS (hysterically pleading): Look, Will you please just tell us what’s it called?

Noma: Why should I when you just did?

JS (understanding): You mean....

Noma (cutting me short): Exactly. It’s called ‘What’s it called?’

JS: Why did you call it by such a strange name?

Noma: It’s not strange at all. In fact, it’s the most popular title for all the best known books. Haven’t you heard people say ‘You know that latest one of Salman Rushdie? What’s it called’, or ‘Have you seen Amitav Ghosh’s latest? What’s it called?’ Now when anyone says ‘What’s it called’, they’ll be talking about my book, whether they know it or not.

JS (relieved): OK. We’ve finally got it sorted out as to what it’s called. Now, what’s it about?

Noma (outraged): About? What is any great work of art about? What can it be about but itself? Is the Mona Lisa about something other than the Mona Lisa? The Pyramids about something other than the Pyramids, the Taj Mahal....

JS (cutting in): OK, OK. So ‘What’s it called?’ is about ‘What’s it called?’ That’s fine. Just fine. But can you tell us a little bit more about its content?

Noma: Certainly. For one thing it’s got none of those nasty four-letter words you find in so much of modern writing.

JS: So you deliberately left out objectionable four-letter words out of a sensitive deference to our culture, to our sanskriti, to our parampara, or tradition, of decency and moral rectitude?

Noma (picking her nose): That too. But mainly I didn’t use four-letter words because in school I never could learn to spell anything above three letters.

JS (amazed): You mean to say you’ve written a great big book like that using only words of three letters and less? Incredible!

Noma: Actually I’ve written that great big book using only words of zero letters and less.

JS: You mean....?

Noma: That’s right. There are no words in my book, at all.

JS: But people don’t read books with no words in them!

Noma (shrugs): People don’t read books which have words in them. They are too busy watching TV. So why waste time writing a book with words in it?

JS: But how did you write a book with no words in it?

Noma: Simple. I didn’t write 1,000 words for 1,000 days, which gave me a total of 1 million words I hadn’t written which I put in the book.

JS (admiringly): Fantastic! So what you’ve got is a totally blank book.

Noma (modestly): That’s right.

JS: And what do you expect by way of royalties for it?

Noma: What else — a blank cheque!