Nobel Peace Prize for Saarc?
After being the root cause and primary theatre of two World Wars within a span of three decades in early 20th century, if anyone would have thought about a peace award for a regional organisation in the 1950s and 60s, one is sure, the above questions would have been posed. How did Europe evolve into what is today, in a span of seven decades? And why has South Asia, whose countries evolved after the end of Second World War has become a laughing stock for regional cooperation during the same seven decades? True, for many of us, Saarc receiving a Nobel Prize for Peace is a laughing matter. True, it is less likely to happen. True, it may be too idealistic. Just because it is less likely to happen and too idealistic, should we not desire for it? Should we not dream for it? How did EU manage to bag this award in 2012, for contributing "to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe?" Where did the EU succeed and where did the Saarc fail? Many of us are extremely critical of the Saarc. Today Saarc has become a perfect example of how a regional organisation should not be. But besides being critical and sarcastic, if we have to step back and take an impassionate view, one would identify, that the problem is not with the Saarc, an institution for regional cooperation. Rather, the problem is with us we, the South Asians. Saarc only embodies the collective failure of us we, the South Asians. Why blame the Saarc, an association made by us, for our own failures? Before anyone trying to accuse the attempt to evolve a regional identity as "an Indian conspiracy" to directly and/or indirectly make South Asia into an Indian subcontinent the analysis is aimed at creating a regional identity, and not to enlarge an Indian identity. In fact, this has been one of the primary problems in South Asia the multiple sub-regions and countries fear that India believes in Akhand Bharat, and is aiming to sub-merge the multiple identities and sub-regions into one large Indian continent. Even if there is a section within India, which believes in such a notion, it belongs to a fringe. Undoubtedly, India is huge in every aspect and its leadership has not been even handed in pursuing an equitable strategy with its sub-regions and smaller neighbours. Many mistakes have been made by the Indian leadership, but is there a larger agenda behind, to superimpose an Indian identity over the rest? Many within South Asia and even within the sub-regions of India believe that New Delhi has a grand design. In fact, the problem with India has always been, it never had a grand strategy vis-à-vis its neighbours and vis-à-vis its own sub-regions. Being the only country, sharing the borders with all its neighbours (except Afghanistan), India should have taken the lead, pursued an equitable strategy and be the backbone of South Asian development. If India would have become a bridge for the region, South Asia would have automatically become a bridge for Southeast Asia and Central Asia. Had the above happened, we would be seeing the Asian Railway and Asian Highway criss-crossing South Asia, linking Moscow with Singapore through train and bus. Had the above happened, China would have invested enough to build a huge pipeline linking Yunnan and Sichuan with Iran and the rest of West Asia via South Asia. It has not happened, not because the Saarc has failed, but we, the South Asians have no regional sense. In fact, the pessimist in many of us would even go a bit further and say we, the South Asians have no sense at all. Otherwise, why would South Asia remain the region that trades the least within itself? Intra-Saarc trade is less than five percent, meaning the region trade with others and not within. From Srinagar to Jaffna, from Herat to Guwahati, we see ourselves primarily us Kashmiris, Tamils, Hazaras, Nagas etc, and not as a South Asians. There is nothing wrong in having our ethnic identity; but it should not become an obstacle for a secondary and larger identity. And in the process, our regions should be not become cocoons and islands, worse like the Shire of the Lord of the Rings, where we see our own land as pristine and the rest full Orcs and Gollums. Perhaps, besides perceiving ourselves as Hobbits, Elves, Wizards, Rangers and Dwarfs, we should form a fellowship of a peace ring in South Asia. Everyone has a role to play in ensuring a "South Asian" identity evolves in us. Neighbours and sub-regions can blame India and vice-versa for what has not happened. This will be a never ending blame game. Or, perhaps, we, the South Asians could do something. While chatting with our friends either in Singapore or in Paris, do not we realise, how less this regional identity is developed among we, the South Asians? Does that not pinch us? The above should bring us to another question: should we have a regional identify? Why should we not just remain us Nepalese and Sinhalese, or just Bengalis, Maharatis and Pashtuns? Nothing wrong in that approach; except that, it would not fit the pace in which the rest of the world is coming together or the rest of other regions are evolving. Despite all criticisms and sarcasms, Euro as a currency of a region shows how far the EU has led from the forefront. Despite all its flaws, what the EU has done is to create a regional identity and ensure that besides being French, German and Spanish, they are also Europeans. It has addressed the minds of people. Is that not where all the wars start? And perhaps, that is why, it deserves the Nobel. Perhaps, we, the South Asians should also work towards it. However unattainable and idealistic it may be. Even if we don't reach the milestone, the journey is worth it.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments