1

2

WORLD CONFERENCE ON SOUTH ASIA: DEMOCRACY, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE

New Delhi - 24-26 February, 2011

SOUTH ASIAN UNION: VISION OF A PEACEFUL SOUTH ASIA – OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE

By Dr. Kamal Hossain

It has been part of our South Asian culture ritually to celebrate anniversaries and to reaffirm our commitment to fulfill pledges made to ourselves to meet the challenge of change. In deference to this practice, I would recall that the second half of the 20th century was marked in South Asia by the transition of the states in this region from a colonial and authoritarian past towards democracy. During this period at the global level the international community had adopted the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and projected the vision of a new global order, aimed at the realization of peace, justice and human rights. Looking back to the early years, I am struck by the similarity of the language in which peoples’ aspirations were expressed. We had asserted our right to self-government, to representative institutions to be established through free and fair elections, to the rule of law, to an independent judiciary, and through these institutions to strive for social and economic transformation of our societies, in which there existed unacceptable levels of social and economic inequality. Our post-independence constitutions reflected the values of our independence movements which were based on assertions of human dignity, equality and human rights. The reality which confronts us in South Asia today, as we prepare to face the coming decades is absence of stability and durable peace as situations prevailing in the countries of the region range from that of active conflict in Afghanistan to a fragile peace in Nepal and a difficult post-conflict situation in Sri Lanka – situations that present daunting challenges. Some of the other countries face on-going insurgencies, terrorist threats and tensions resulting from confrontational domestic politics and social and economic inequality. We, in South Asia, need to take a creative leap forward purposefully to lay the foundation for enduring peace and stability, without which no meaningful progress can be made in realizing our cherished goals and the legitimate expectations of our peoples. Hope stems from the fact that more than half the population of South Asia consists of young women and men below 25 years of age. We, therefore, can expect a significant change in perspective – a paradigm shift – so that instead of bemoaning past failures and missed opportunities we can forge a new outlook and orientation to enable us to envision our future with hope and confidence. We could take note of changed circumstances since 1947. Among these are: the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971, the end of armed conflict in Sri Lanka and Nepal. The sustained efforts to build democracy in almost all the countries in the region are based on the shared goal of achieving sustainable human development through a working democracy. For the realization of this vision, enduring peace is indispensable.

3

Historical circumstances had generated confrontational relations and conflicts that operated as barriers to achieving our goals. The emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 presented the prospect of building a new set of relations among the countries in South Asia. It is interesting to recall the initial message, received soon after its liberation, by Bangladesh from Premier Chou En-Lai, suggested that the new realities in the sub-continent called for building a Commonwealth of South Asia. The Simla Pact of 1972 between India and Pakistan and the Tripartite Agreement of 1974 signed by Bangladesh, India and Pakistan contain powerful declarations of intent to move from a past of conflict and confrontation towards a future of peace and cooperation. These mark the beginning of the process which culminated in Bangladesh’s initiative which led to the establishment of SAARC. The slow pace of progress in the evolution of SAARC – a somewhat anemic SAARC – with a modest initial mandate limited to five areas of technical co-operation, later extended to twelve, is explained by the doubts and reservations which are part of the historical legacy of mutual distrust. We need to take major initiatives to build confidence and trust on which to nurture the consensus needed to pursue shared strategic objectives. Civil Paths to Peace1 I would like to draw upon a report published in 2007 entitled: Civil Paths to Peace. This was the work of the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding formed at the initiative of Commonwealth heads of government. It had brought eleven of us together under the Chairmanship of Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, to explore, in depth, the causes of violence within our societies and to identify factors which contribute to intolerance resulting in conflict and terrorism. The Commission analyzed the causes of conflict, violence and terrorism. It commended Civil Paths which call for international and regional cooperation to promote peace. It urged the adoption of a coordinated approach to support citizens’ national efforts to promote peace, democracy and sustainable development. Such an approach would aim to nurture respect and understanding within and among the states of the region. Violence2 (a) In some of the countries of South Asia, dalits (scheduled castes), tribals (scheduled

tribes), other castes and ethnic and religious minorities face serious levels of exclusion in terms of their access to income, education social services and their participation in political and decision-making processes. Pervasive intolerance and injustice exact costs in human suffering, when these lead to violence, either as a desperate form of protest, or severe repression, marked by gross violation of human rights when security services use violence to put down and silence protests. Violence is often a struggle for political and economic power, the main mode of conflict in a civil war or regional power struggle. At a local level violence may erupt sporadically between inner city gangs competing for control of resources.

(b) Violence is not just a physical attack aimed to cause hurt or pain, it is also an attack

on personhood, on the human-ness of others, on an individual and community's sense of self-worth or identity. The rape of women in war is a physical act that aims to cause individual women physical and mental pain but also a symbolic act that reflects the notion of women as embodiments of national and cultural identity that can be

4

violated through their bodies. Violence against women is therefore aimed at destroying the honour and self-respect of the whole group.

(c) Other forms of violence also have symbolic aspects. The victims of terrorist attacks

may be the terrorist's own community or even his or her own body but the target is authority. Terrorist forms of violence intentionally break basic human codes of conduct so that by violating all social norms it provokes outrage and cannot be ignored. The symbolic aspect is clear: the organizationally 'weak' terrorist group aims to provoke the 'strong' authorities into a substantial over reaction that will damage their standing and moral authority both domestically and internationally.

(d) Because of the multifaceted nature of violence and the many different types of

grievances being played out it is difficult to make generalizations about underlying causes. Each process of violence has its own trajectory, which reaches back into history and forward into visions of what different parties want to achieve. At any moment in that trajectory there will be immediate issues to deal with but also long running, real and imagined injustices that are not openly discussed but need to be understood and acknowledged before healing can begin.

The Commission’s report argues that the battle against terrorism and group violence must go much beyond policing criminal activities and confronting military challenges, important though they are. To resist engineered violence, we need to understand the ways and means that are used to recruit those who foment violence and perpetrate terrorism. The process of recruitment is a battle for people’s mind. The battle for the human mind is at least as important in resisting terrorism and brutality as battles to secure physical bridgeheads. The Civil Paths to Peace spelt out the ways and means - through which we can defeat the appeals on which the fomenters of violence rely. It identified processes to change the conditions - the reality which generates anger and hatred, so as to enable people to see each other as human beings with a variety of concerns, which call for mutual respect and understanding. These processes include: * Multi-lateral consultation and extensive dialogues. * Political participation within each country - to be facilitated by the cultivation of a

non-divisive identity built around shared concerns and values, which can transcend, without undermining or suppressing, political or social identities.

* Encouraging this process through well informed public discussions, which allow

alternative points of view to be more fully expressed and help to make the shared objectives of the nation and the world better understood.

* Expansion of non-sectarian and non-parochial education which nurtures respect for

every human person and a culture of human rights as a way of life. Pluralism, identities and terrorism3

(a) An important feature of identities is their pluralism. We have, as it were, a portfolio of identities that we carry about with us and juggle and negotiate and occasionally have to reconcile according to the situation. As Amartya Sen notes: 4

5

'In our normal lives, we see ourselves as members of a variety of groups - we

belong to all of them. A person's citizenship, residence, geographic origin, gender, class, politics, profession, employment, food habits, sports interests, taste in music, social commitments etc. make us members of a variety of groups ...None of them can be taken to be the person's only identity or singular membership category.’

(b) The problem is that relations based on respect and understanding are undermined

when contestations for power or a sense of injustice are experienced or explained in terms of just one or two of these identities and the salience of the rest are ignored. This closes the door for dialogue on the basis of those other identities, many of which could bring groups together because they are shared.

(c) Our great South Asian poet-philosopher and teacher, Rabindranath Tagore, knew that

no nation, culture, ideology or religious tradition had a monopoly for virtue; nor a monopoly of vice either. All systems of belief were a mixture of good and evil, of truth and untruth. The only way to make one’s nation or culture less false was to broaden it by listening to (and learning from) other nations and cultures. Recall, a hundred years later, the warnings against cultural arrogance that he issued in 1908: “It is not as if, at the bar of the judgment seat of the Almighty, different advocates are engaged in pleading the rival causes of Hindu, Moslem or Westerner, and that the party that wins the decree shall finally plant the standard of permanent possession.” Addressed to the bigots and xenophobes of his own day, these remarks can be addressed again to those who wish to forcibly impose their own convictions on the rest of humanity.” 5

Stereotyping and Intolerance - Correcting through Civil Initiatives6 (a) We have seen that in situations of tension, groups tend to construct historical

narratives about each other that explain their sense of mutual antagonism and justify a violent response.

(b) This stereotyping can occur between communities at a country level but it also occurs

at a global level when groups identify in terms of identities that transcend national boundaries. This telescoping process has many historical antecedents - of the Jews in Nazi Germany, Romany populations in Europe, indigenous people in many countries. In recent years it has been particularly apparent in western countries in relation to Islam.

(c) In 1995, six years before 9/11, the Swedish Foreign Minister, Lena Hielm-Wallen

made an introduction to a conference in Stockholm on relations between Islam and Europe. She captured the process of how narratives have been established and spread. She noted the tendency:7

`... on the part of certain Western politicians and the media to paint a picture

of Islam as the major threat after the collapse of communism. Social, cultural, economic and political problems, which are not due to religion, are explained by references to Islam. Although there are now more than a billion Muslims,

6

constituting a majority of the population in some fifty states from South-east Asia to West Africa, Islam is depicted as a monolithic bloc. Fundamentalist movements and expressions of fanaticism are presented as "the real Islam", which is just as false as equating Christianity with the Inquisition, for example'.

(d) The tendency to depict Islam as an undifferentiated bloc and as a major threat has

gathered pace since 9/11. The western press has very often paired the word 'Islam/Islamic' with words like 'terrorism', 'fundamentalism' and 'radicalization'. Over time such pairing inevitably leads ordinary people to associate, at a conscious or unconscious level, terrorism with Islam - rather than with the actions of a violent criminal minority that could be of any religion.

(e) This highlights the enormous influence of the media on public perceptions. Whilst

responsible, nuanced and in-depth reporting can be a positive force for good, irresponsible reporting can, over time, construct negative and wrong identity profiles. These can create mistrust and suspicion, heighten feelings of fear and even encourage violence.

Terrorism8 (a) Unlike most other forms of criminality terrorist acts are not for personal gain but for a

cause. And unlike other forms of violence they tend to be treated quite differently by governments. The 'problem' is that acts of terror are so devastating and so repugnant, so devoid of any respect for human-ness that there is a refusal by many governments and by many sections of the population to look for causes, to try to understand the 'terrible wrong' that they aspire to right, or even to talk to those involved. Groups classified as terrorists thus are excluded from political processes and from the possibility of dialogue.

(b) The label terrorist has some advantages for governments as it can justify the introduction of security measures that might not otherwise be tolerated by the general population. But such security measures can have serious drawbacks. If suspects are detained without trial they deny people their human rights. Other measures can prejudice the majority population against minority groups that share an aspect of their identity with the perpetrators and lead to their victimization. Heavy handed or inept anti-terrorist measures can also stir up feelings of grievance amongst minority groups themselves - including those resident in other countries - that feel their very identity is itself under attack and is being disrespected.

(c) The alternative which the Commission agreed upon was to bring groups engaging in

acts of terrorism into the political fold and engage them in dialogue. This takes real belief in the power of dialogue and brave action by individuals, but it does occur (paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland are an example). Dialoguing with groups at the far end of the political spectrum or with those that hold views that most people feel are repugnant is a real test for countries that have experienced prolonged violence.

Militarization, Human Security and the Peace Process

7

Professor Akmal Hossain in his paper presented to the First South Asia Economic Summit (August 2008) entitled: A Perspective on Peace and Economic Cooperation in South Asia focused on the implications of militarization and the arms race between India and Pakistan both as threats to peace and as obstacles to development, thus: 9

“States in South Asia have primarily pursued 'national security' through the building of the military capability for mass annihilation of each other's citizens. It is not surprising that South Asia is the poorest and yet the most militarized region in the world: It contains almost half the world's poor and yet has the capability, even in a limited nuclear exchange to kill over 100 million people immediately with many hundreds of million more dying subsequently from radiation related illnesses.

The arms race between India and Pakistan (with these two countries accounting for 93 percent of total military expenditure in South Asia) is responsible for this cruel irony. India ranked at 142 in terms of per capita income, ranks first in the world in terms of arms imports. Pakistan is not far behind, being ranked 119 in terms of per capita income and tenth in the world in terms of arms imports. These military expenditures whose scale is unprecedented in the developing world are being undertaken in the name of achieving national security in a situation where the majority of the population in South Asia is living below the international poverty line (US$ 2 a day), 46 percent of the children are malnourished and 35 percent of the population is suffering from health deprivation (measured in terms of lack of access to safe water and undernourished population). The trade-off between military expenditures and the provision of basic services is worth considering. For example a modem submarine with associated support systems costs US $ 300 million which would be enough to provide safe drinking water to 60 million people. These figures put into question the logic of increasing military expenditures as a means of achieving national security.” “The deadly nuclear dimension that has, since 1998, been added to the India Pakistan arms race, is seen by the respective governments to reinforce national security through a presumed 'deterrence'”. “Apart from the danger of an accidental nuclear war the current structure of the India Pakistan tension is such that a chance terrorist attack can induce military mobilization and repeatedly bring both countries to a point where the nuclear button could be deliberately pressed by one, then the other side.”

The dangers posed in themselves call for urgent attention. Reducing tension and the potential conflicts would also release significant resources – a substantial peace dividend for productive purposes.

Challenge of Sustainable Development and Regional Cooperation The State and Democracy in South Asia Report (2008) brings home to us how formidable is the challenge of social and economic change that still faces us:10 “Once seen as a contradiction in terms which required a country to choose either

political freedom or economic equality, the challenge of simultaneously pursuing the two goals is present in some measure in all parts of the world, but nowhere is the challenge as imposing as it is in South Asia …. If one needed any evidence to believe that freedom from want is still a distant goal in this region, that South Asians

8

experience the most intense forms of poverty, deprivation and destitution, this report lists it all. The per capita income in every country of the region … is less than half the global average and below the global average for developing countries. Nearly a third of the people in the region still live below the poverty line. … Literacy and enrollment figures are way behind the global average; nearly 40 per cent of the adult population is non-literate and only about half of the school going age children are actually enrolled in schools. Health indicators are equally dismal; one-fifth of the population is undernourished; infant mortality is higher than the global and developing countries’ averages; the region has more patients of tuberculosis than in any other region of the world. … All this evidence presents us with the paradox of the co-existence of mass poverty and mass democracy.”

As we look forward to a common future for South Asia, we should begin to identify basic common objectives. Clearly the first on the list must be peace and stability in our region, being indispensable for development in the interest of the poor and the deprived in each of our societies. Development in this context must mean sustainable human development, development which must be sensitive to environmental and social concerns. A sound test of a people centred development is how it improves the conditions of the bottom 50 per cent of our populations? The challenge of the coming decades in South Asia is presented by expanding populations and increasing pressures for expanding employment and investment opportunities. A significant expansion of employment and investment opportunities could be realized within a framework of multi-dimensional regional co-operation. The goal of such co-operation would be sustainable development aimed at optimizing the use of human and natural resources in a manner that ensures equal opportunities, social and gender justice. Multi-dimensional co-operation could embrace a range of different sectors including energy, environment, trade and communications, human resources development and the sharing of R and D for generating innovative and improved technologies. To facilitate free movement of peoples within the different countries of South Asia should be given high priority. The talk of a common history and shared culture needs to be reflected in policies to raise awareness amongst its citizens so as to overcome the barriers and change the negative attitudes towards cooperation which are a legacy of the past. The prospects for each country would thus be visualized not in isolation but in the context of widening options and expanding opportunities within a framework of regional co-operation. The challenges that face us and the possibilities that exist are well encapsulated in the words of George Verghese in his study on the Waters of Hope:11 “The glaring contradiction of the largest concentration of the world’s most poor unable

to garner the bounty of one of the world’s richest natural resources regions in which they live is an indictment that can no longer be evaded. Not a little has been achieved over the past 40 years. But not enough. Political stability and the social fabric are threatened as populations multiply and justly demand equity and opportunity.”

His recommendation is that “on a large canvas the Basin of the great rivers has to become an ecologically responsible region in order to secure ecological security for all.” This approach can be extended to develop a wider movement to secure peace, security and progress for all our peoples by promoting cooperation within the broadest possible frame.

9

A recent study undertaken for the SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industry reflects our growing awareness - an emerging consensus - on the importance of regional co-operation, thus:12 "It is well recognized in government, commercial, industrial and academic institutions

that in this era when the regional economic bloc is a by-word, it is necessary for SAARC to move at a faster pace towards integration of its economies and markets. This reality can be ignored by our countries only at a risk of being marginalized in the world economy. Experience of regional groups like European Union, NAFTA, ASEAN and now APEC shows that regional co-operation is not a zero sum game. Enhanced trade and investment interaction among neighbouring nations have been advantages to all whether more or less developed and have inevitably led to improvement in income levels and living standards."

Regional cooperation could be viewed as extending beyond economic and technical co-operation to co-operation in different areas of institution building. We could share our experiences in many areas to strengthen democratic institutions. These areas would include electoral reforms to improve the framework for free and fair elections, administrative reforms to promote transparency and accountability so as to reduce arbitrariness and corruption, and legal and judicial reforms to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, so that equal protection of law becomes a reality for all, including the weak and the poor, in our societies. A shared commitment to the goal of sustainable development for the benefit of the peoples - children, women and men - of South Asia could thus be served through multi-layered, multi-dimensional regional cooperation. Changing Geopolitical Environment and Regional Cooperation We find ourselves in the midst of change on an unprecedented scale. The scale of global changes suggests that we might be at a juncture of history, which marks a transition from one historical epoch to another. How will these tidal waves of global change impact on our society and our region is a matter of critical importance for us. Caught up in the midst of transition and change, we need to take stock and together explore the potential and possibilities that exist in our societies, and within our region, for strategies of regional cooperation, in order to realize strategic national and regional goals. Unresolved issues deriving from ethnic and sectarian conflicts tend to vitiate the political climate and loss of a co-ordinated response to global and regional challenges. This is why efforts should be directed to improving the political environment in our region. We should move our governments to attach the highest foreign policy priority to a resolution of outstanding issues, removal of sources of tension, and to building mutual trust and confidence through constructive consultations and coordination of responses to common challenges, ecological, economic or other, faced by us. Ethnic and communal conflicts promoting extremist tendencies in some of our societies not only threaten political stability, but by their very nature, have a negative impact on relations between countries in our region. High priority needs to be given within our countries to resolve ethnic conflicts and to contain the growth of extremism. South Asia is described as one of the critical regions with complex security in the world primarily due to the fact that most of the states in this region are engulfed with a wide range of

10

conflicts and disputes. Almost inexorably, South Asian nations, despite their apparent adherence to the ideal of non-alignment, have pursued extremely disconsonant foreign policies. This has allowed external elements to aggravate the intra-regional cleavages of South Asia. In 2003 on the eve of the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad an important agreement was arrived at between India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire along the Line of Control in Kashmir. This important agreement launched the composite peace process for South Asia aimed at putting an end to all major conflicts between India and Pakistan. Subsequent follow up has been impeded and proceeds haltingly. The 12th SAARC Summit had itself declared the commitment to form a South Asian Economic Union. A study observes, “If formed (it) will pave the way for more ambitious - but entirely achievable - goals such as a Free Trade Area, and economic union, open borders and a common currency for the region” but goes on to conclude: “…the vision of a South Asian Economic Union, which could evolve into a South Asian Union, will remain impeded so long as political disputes continue to persist.” 13 It is argued that, “The realization of durable peace and the future of economic integration through SAARC lies on the ability and interest of South Asian leaders to resolve domestic as well as long-standing differences. Despite religious and cultural heterogeneity there is no problem at the public level in South Asia whether one comes from India or Pakistan, Hindu or Muslim they can hug each other without any problem. The centre of the problem lies with `politics’ of the nation states and its agencies.”14 A regional citizen’s coalition, the South Asians for Human Rights (“SAHR”), however, has argued in favour of an alternative approach as follows:

“Perhaps it is time for India and Pakistan to realize the need to move away from the strategy of seeking mutual peace and goodwill through solution of disputes and disagreements. This approach has been tested and found fruitless. Before the parties move an inch towards addressing an old problem a new dispute pushes them a yard apart. Is any alternative available? The answer is in the affirmative.”

“The alternative route suggested over the past many years by quite a few Indians and Pakistanis of goodwill stresses the need to put the contentious issues on the back burner and concentrate on promoting collaboration between the two countries in mutual interest.”

“Many people have identified the steps on this alternative route. First of all the people should be allowed to revive cross-border friendships, regardless of what the spoil sports in security agencies may say. The two states cannot build bridges of friendship so long as ordinary Indians and Pakistanis treat each other as irreconcilable enemies, straight out of their poison-laden history books.”

“The possibilities of increasing cooperation in the economic field have already been

documented. There will be problems in the beginning because the two countries, Pakistan specially, have traditionally based their economic planning on the assumption that the twain shall never meet, but all authorities on the subject agree that close economic cooperation will greatly benefit the people on both sides.”

“India and Pakistan have no right to allow their bilateral wrangling to undermine

South Asia's future. Quite plainly India-Pakistan standoff is not merely a bilateral matter, it is a South Asian issue of the first order.”15

11

Concluding Observations Voices across South Asia must resolutely call for concerted and coordinated efforts to pursue enduring peace in order to accelerate sustainable development. This will build confidence and strong public opinion to remove doubts and suspicions which have created barriers. Governments of South Asia have to confront formidable challenges in order to steer the region towards a future people-centered South Asian Union - a South Asian Union of the people, by the people for the people. The peoples of South Asia will need to play a pro-active role and function as agents of change, if that vision is to be realised. Critical will be the role of youth i.e., women and men below 25. They must be seen as inheritors of the changing world. They should not simply be passive recipients. They should be in the front line as the vanguards of change. They must engage in the process of dialogue and decision-making. They need to be included in forums where it is possible to listen and participate but also to put forward their own point of view and have their own narratives heard, discussed and debated. The role of youthful “peace volunteers” during the transition to the new South Africa in the early nineties provides a model worth emulating in our region. Finally, one cannot over-estimate the importance of media, through linking, in particular visual linking, of like-minded peace initiatives throughout the region, which would encourage coordinated efforts to build peace as the foundation for our common future in a South Asian Union. In concluding, we could derive inspiration from Nelson Mandela, when he writes of “great dreams”, thus: “I am very fond of great dreams…at a time when some people are feverishly encouraging

the growth of fractional forces, raising the tribe into the finest and highest form of social organization, setting one national group against the other, cosmopolitan dreams are not only desirable but a bounden duty; dreams that stress the special unity that hold the freedom forces together – (in) a bond that has been forged by common struggles, sacrifices and traditions.”16

NOTES

1 Report of the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding (“Report”), Civil Paths to

Peace, Commonwealth Secretariat, London 2007. 2 Sarah Ladbury, Why Does Respect and Understanding Breakdown – Or Fail to Characterize

Relationships ? What Helps Engender Respect and Understanding ? (Background paper 2 for the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding ), Commonwealth Secretariat, London, 2007, pp.7-13.

3 Report, pp.21-24 4 Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence, Penguin, London 2006, p.5

12

5 Ramachandra Guha, Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism, Penguin, New Delhi, 2009, p.lvii. 6 Sarah Ladbury, op.cit. pp.23-25. 7 ibid., p.24 8 ibid., pp.25-26 9 Professor Akmal Hossain, A Perspective on Peace and Economic Cooperation in South Asia, SACEPS,

Colombo, pp.11-12, 2008. 10 UNDP, The State and Democracy in South Asia Report, 2008. 11 George Verghese, Waters of Hope, Oxford, New Delhi, 1999, p.385. 12 SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Delhi, 2008. 13 Chandra Bhatt, Regional Integration and Peace in South Asia: A Study, London, 2006, pp.13 14 ibid, p.16 15 I.A. Rehman, “Can India and Pakistan look beyond Disputes?”, SAHR, Newsletter, August 2010, p.2. 16 Nelson Mandela, Conversations with Myself, London, MacMillan, 2010, p. 17.